Bizarre interview with FL

C'dale Girl said:

Yes, both professions can be sued for malpractice. Which is why my original question to the poster was "on what grounds would FL sue his attorneys" (i.e. what did they do wrong?)

The answer I got was that they lost. 😉 Apparently, that is what they did wrong.

Do you see any malpractice by FL's attorneys in his case?

I haven't reviewed the details of the case so I can't answer directly. But Flandis may or should think his lawyers did something wrong since he KNOWS he is innocent of charges yet still is convicted (put simply). I'm sure if someone nitpicks the case they will find areas where his lawyers either could have argued a point better or made an error, even if it is one of omission. For one, I thought Suh came across as a smug a-hole - that couldn't have helped. Oh, and that whole LeMond fiasco (attacking a witness that was just intimidated) probably didn't help either.

limerickman said:

The US in particular is a highly litigious country.
No disrespect to our legal friends but when you have a society whose structures were created by lawyers, litigation is bound to prosper.

That is an understatement. When the vast majority of legislators are lawyers, I wonder who the law favors?🙄

limerickman said:

Well the labs used to test samples are staffed by eminently qualified people.
All of the labs that do conduct tests have to have reliable methodology...if they don't have reliable methodologies and, as a result, issue results which are clinically incorrect, those labs would lose their funding and the reputation of the staff would be seriously imperilled and makes their chances of gaining future employment very difficult.

No credible lab and/or scientist would deliberately corrupt a sample to achieve a given result - it's more than their reputation is worth.

Lim, I think it is no coincidence that of all the confirmed dopers in recent memory the only two riders to attack the process with a complete legal onslaught were Americans, Hamilton and Landis. Others threatened (if I remember) but never followed through. I think this is for two primary reasons.

1. The current culture in America promotes this behavior. The saying 'sue 'em' is commonplace and almost slang in many parts. This behavior is promoted because it is possible for plaintiffs to win money, sometimes large sums, for BS. Most of these cases are settled out of court because the defendant realizes it will cost as much or more to fight the case (with an expensive lawyer) than to just 'pay off' the plaintiff. And if you win as the defendant, you gain nothing in the end and usually lose thousands to the lawyer. Additionally, most cases are taken by lawyers for no fee unless the plaintiff wins. Thus the plaintiff has no personal liability for bringing forth a case with little merit. I know Landis and Hamilton had to pay lawyer fees, but to avoid this, they set up 'foundations' which essentially provided them the same scenario. While in Europe I never found this behavior, and when talking with Europeans, I again find this culture foreign to them, which is good for you across the pond.

2. America is plagued...I mean full of aggressive lawyers. They have to make a living like everyone else and civil litigation can pay the bills and even be very profitable. There are many lawyers and firms across the country willing to take on such cases. Our law schools produce more lawyers than we need which causes much of this mess.

fscyclist said:

Lim, I think it is no coincidence that of all the confirmed dopers in recent memory the only two riders to attack the process with a complete legal onslaught were Americans, Hamilton and Landis. Others threatened (if I remember) but never followed through. I think this is for two primary reasons.

Danilo Hondo

fscyclist said:

2. Our law schools produce more lawyers than we need which causes much of this mess.

You would think with the number of lawyers churned out, the law of supply and demand would kick in and the cost would go down. Instead the lawyers just invent new things to sue about. 😉

limerickman said:

Well it's worth re-rading some of the comments that were posted immediately after Landis got busted and when both samples tested positives.

Too bad the search function has been disabled. It would be fun to revisit the comments. The comments after Hamilton tested positive would probably be even funnier.

Bro Deal said:

Too bad the search function has been disabled. It would be fun to revisit the comments. The comments after Hamilton tested positive would probably be even funnier.

If you really do wish to put yourself through the torture of re-reading some out(f)landish excuses see these

http://www.cyclingforums.com/t-354418-15-1.html

http://www.cyclingforums.com/t356046.html

http://www.cyclingforums.com/t355965.html

http://www.cyclingforums.com/t355988.html

http://www.cyclingforums.com/t356223.html
this one is hilarious.

http://www.cyclingforums.com/t356065.html
more excuses.

http://www.cyclingforums.com/t356297.html
and more

limerickman said:

If you really do wish to put yourself through the torture of re-reading some out(f)landish excuses see these

cyclingforums.comt 354418 15 1.htmlOpen ↗

cyclingforums.comt356046.htmlOpen ↗

cyclingforums.comt355965.htmlOpen ↗

cyclingforums.comt355988.htmlOpen ↗

cyclingforums.comt356223.htmlOpen ↗
this one is hilarious.

cyclingforums.comt356065.htmlOpen ↗
more excuses.

cyclingforums.comt356297.htmlOpen ↗
and more

We should hold a contest to find the most outrageous posts.

Hopefully I won't be too embarrassed.

fscyclist said:

Lim, I think it is no coincidence that of all the confirmed dopers in recent memory the only two riders to attack the process with a complete legal onslaught were Americans, Hamilton and Landis. Others threatened (if I remember) but never followed through. I think this is for two primary reasons.

1. The current culture in America promotes this behavior. The saying 'sue 'em' is commonplace and almost slang in many parts. This behavior is promoted because it is possible for plaintiffs to win money, sometimes large sums, for BS. Most of these cases are settled out of court because the defendant realizes it will cost as much or more to fight the case (with an expensive lawyer) than to just 'pay off' the plaintiff. And if you win as the defendant, you gain nothing in the end and usually lose thousands to the lawyer. Additionally, most cases are taken by lawyers for no fee unless the plaintiff wins. Thus the plaintiff has no personal liability for bringing forth a case with little merit. I know Landis and Hamilton had to pay lawyer fees, but to avoid this, they set up 'foundations' which essentially provided them the same scenario. While in Europe I never found this behavior, and when talking with Europeans, I again find this culture foreign to them, which is good for you across the pond.

2. America is plagued...I mean full of aggressive lawyers. They have to make a living like everyone else and civil litigation can pay the bills and even be very profitable. There are many lawyers and firms across the country willing to take on such cases. Our law schools produce more lawyers than we need which causes much of this mess.

[img]freesmileys.orggrey%5E %5Earial%5E %5E1%5E %5E0%5E %5EBravo%21%20Molto%20astuto,%20fscyclist%5E %5E.gifOpen ↗[/img]

fscyclist said:

Lim, I think it is no coincidence that of all the confirmed dopers in recent memory the only two riders to attack the process with a complete legal onslaught were Americans, Hamilton and Landis. Others threatened (if I remember) but never followed through. I think this is for two primary reasons.

1. The current culture in America promotes this behavior. The saying 'sue 'em' is commonplace and almost slang in many parts. This behavior is promoted because it is possible for plaintiffs to win money, sometimes large sums, for BS. Most of these cases are settled out of court because the defendant realizes it will cost as much or more to fight the case (with an expensive lawyer) than to just 'pay off' the plaintiff. And if you win as the defendant, you gain nothing in the end and usually lose thousands to the lawyer. Additionally, most cases are taken by lawyers for no fee unless the plaintiff wins. Thus the plaintiff has no personal liability for bringing forth a case with little merit. I know Landis and Hamilton had to pay lawyer fees, but to avoid this, they set up 'foundations' which essentially provided them the same scenario. While in Europe I never found this behavior, and when talking with Europeans, I again find this culture foreign to them, which is good for you across the pond.

2. America is plagued...I mean full of aggressive lawyers. They have to make a living like everyone else and civil litigation can pay the bills and even be very profitable. There are many lawyers and firms across the country willing to take on such cases. Our law schools produce more lawyers than we need which causes much of this mess.

Agreed : given the circumstances that you have outlined, it is no wonder that
the USA is very litigious.
Of course, it's the prerogative of a society to decide whether or not to allow the circumstances for those levels of litigation.

fscyclist said:

... it is no coincidence that of all the confirmed dopers in recent memory the only two riders to attack the process with a complete legal onslaught were Americans....

fscyclist, you are...
[img]freesmileys.orgyellow%5E %5Earial%5E %5E0%5E %5E0%5E %5EVery%20observant%20for%20USA born%5E %5E.gifOpen ↗[/img]

fscyclist said:

Lim, I think it is no coincidence that of all the confirmed dopers in recent memory the only two riders to attack the process with a complete legal onslaught were Americans, Hamilton and Landis. Others threatened (if I remember) but never followed through. I think this is for two primary reasons.

1. The current culture in America promotes this behavior. The saying 'sue 'em' is commonplace and almost slang in many parts. This behavior is promoted because it is possible for plaintiffs to win money, sometimes large sums, for BS. Most of these cases are settled out of court because the defendant realizes it will cost as much or more to fight the case (with an expensive lawyer) than to just 'pay off' the plaintiff. And if you win as the defendant, you gain nothing in the end and usually lose thousands to the lawyer. Additionally, most cases are taken by lawyers for no fee unless the plaintiff wins. Thus the plaintiff has no personal liability for bringing forth a case with little merit. I know Landis and Hamilton had to pay lawyer fees, but to avoid this, they set up 'foundations' which essentially provided them the same scenario. While in Europe I never found this behavior, and when talking with Europeans, I again find this culture foreign to them, which is good for you across the pond.

2. America is plagued...I mean full of aggressive lawyers. They have to make a living like everyone else and civil litigation can pay the bills and even be very profitable. There are many lawyers and firms across the country willing to take on such cases. Our law schools produce more lawyers than we need which causes much of this mess.

Agreed on every point. However, always remember, behind every lawyer there is a client that walks into their office. Without the client, the lawyer has no case. But American society is always out for a quick buck . . . . "get rich quick" schemes.

Also remember that behind many cases' human clients, there is an insurance company driving the force. It's a lot more complex problem than simply blaming the lawyers, though I repeat, I agree with all of your thoughts.

The fact that individuals don't get punished for filing ridiculous claims only adds to the problem . . . . that would be a good deterrent that seems to work elsewhere.

limerickman said:

Agreed : given the circumstances that you have outlined, it is no wonder that
the USA is very litigious.
Of course, it's the prerogative of a society to decide whether or not to allow the circumstances for those levels of litigation.

Oh, I just saw that Lim made the same point about the societal driving force (i.e., the fact that behind every lawyer there is a client).

Speaking of ridiculous lawsuits, is anyone aware of what happened to the ones filed by Josh Hancock's father? For those who are unaware of this case, Josh Hancock was a baseball player, who drove his SUV at twice the legal blood alcohol limit (and speeding and using his cell phone and not wearing a seat belt) and died in a crash with a tow truck which was there to tow out a stalled car. The father sued the restaurant for serving Josh drinks, sued the owner of the car that broke down for negligent maintenance, and sued the towing truck company for failing to tow the stalled car on time.

Did he sue his son too?

Ahhhh, the American way.

Here's what I'm going through. I just posted it on a legal forum:

I live on Miami Beach, on the north end in a modest 2/1.

I bought my condo two years ago. I negotiated a storage unit with the condo purchase. It is in the contract documents that I signed with the developer. It is a large storage unit that can hold two bicycles and two surf kayaks. It was an important aspect of the purchase.

Yesterday the developer informed me that I needed to move all my belongings from my storage unit because it was not in compliance with the city fire code (the storage unit, not my belongings) and he needed to sealed it to avoid being fined. He said, after I moved everything out we could discuss a "fair market value" for the storage unit and he would compensate me accordingly.

I have not moved anything nor do I plan to. He indicated that he would seal the storage unit with my belongings inside it.

Of the building's six units, the developer owns five. He said the building will be condemned if I don't comply with his wishes. Currently I'm $50k upside down in my mortgage, so I don't really care if the building is condemned.

I looked online and he will be fined $5,000/infraction starting Jan. 24 and $1,000 every day after.

Since I bought the condo with the storage unit, if he now can NOT deliver the storage unit, isn't he in breach of contract?

Additionally, since he's facing fines for every day he is not in compliance, don't I have him over a barrel? Can't I name my price?

He is the condo association president. Is it possible that he can take my storage unit and pay me what he thinks is a fair market value?

Also, doesn't the bank own much of the storage unit? Can I even sell it if I wanted to?

TheDarkLord said:

Speaking of ridiculous lawsuits, is anyone aware of what happened to the ones filed by Josh Hancock's father? For those who are unaware of this case, Josh Hancock was a baseball player, who drove his SUV at twice the legal blood alcohol limit (and speeding and using his cell phone and not wearing a seat belt) and died in a crash with a tow truck which was there to tow out a stalled car. The father sued the restaurant for serving Josh drinks, sued the owner of the car that broke down for negligent maintenance, and sued the towing truck company for failing to tow the stalled car on time.

hancock's father later (very soon, actually) withdrew the lawsuits. public opinion dogpiling is what swayed him, i believe.

slovakguy said:

hancock's father later (very soon, actually) withdrew the lawsuits. public opinion dogpiling is what swayed him, i believe.

That's good to know. Thanks for the update!

Here's the latest installment: http://velonews.com/race/int/articles/13939.0.html

He seems a very bitter man, and from some of his statements, it sounds like he's willing to bend the rules so long as they're not broken.

Snap!

What was that?

Landis broke another rule.

helmutRoole2 said:

Here's the latest installment: velonews.com13939.0.htmlOpen ↗

That can't be a VN interview! There were actually good, pointed questions there and everytime Landis brought up some stupid point the author called him on it (e.g. that Sevilla is in limbo, that Hamilton is being treated unfairly, etc.).