Justice Eady - what does he know ?

[limerickman]

From Cyclingnews.com


As reported by the UK's Guardian newspaper, Lance Armstrong has won a "a significant victory" in a libel suit against media magnate Rupert Murdoch's Sunday Times of London. On December 17, 2004, Hon. Mr. Justice Eady ruled in the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice in London, England in a libel action brought by Lance Armstrong Vs. Times Newspapers Ltd., David Walsh and Alan English. In his 23 page ruling, Mr. Justice Eady examined the article published in the Sunday Times of London on June 13, 2004, written by Alan English, which reports on Times sportswriter David Walsh's book LA Confidentiel (so far only published in France). English's article on the book, written by Walsh and former L'Equipe cycling reporter Pierre Ballester initially alleged that Armstrong was associated with "illicit performance enhancing drugs", a claim Mr. Justice Eady stated that Times Newspapers Ltd. had "no room of advancing a plea of justification", which finds for the libel of Armstrong in the June 13 article.

Justice Eady initially cited a passage in the Times article, written by Walsh's Sunday Times of London colleague Alan English, that says, "'Armstrong is no ordinary cyclist, but there are those who fear that a man who won five Tours de France in a row must have succumbed to the pressures of taking drugs.' The formula 'those who fear that' is not an effective device to avoid libel."

Eady found that this and many other passages in the Sunday Times article were, "In my judgment, sufficiently powerful to colour the whole article. In the face of these (passages), it seems to me that it would indeed be perverse to conclude that the article meant no more than there were some questions needing to be investigated. The defamatory sting about Mr. Armstrong obviously goes well beyond that."

Eady continued, saying that, "The overall effect of the quotations and the events described in the article is to leave readers with the impression that Mr. Armstrong's denials of drug taking beggar belief and are to be taken with a pinch of salt." Justice Eady did refuse to rule on the "meaning" of these accusations, but found further for the libel of Armstrong, citing Justice Sedly's ruling in Jameel vs. Times Newspapers, Ltd. Throughout his decision, Eady upheld attorney Richard Spearman's brief on behalf of Armstrong, who cited example after example where media magnate Rupert Murdoch's Times Newspapers Ltd. had committed libel in other cases. Throughout his ruling, Eady disallowed Times Newspapers Ltd. claims, saying that they are "too vague and general" and had "no direct nexus with claimant."

Eady also explained in his opening remarks that the Sunday Times of London article had been given clear legal guidance in its wording and structure and that David Walsh had also stated that his claims in LA Confidentiel were "circumstantial". However, the judgment in favour of Armstrong against Murdoch's Times Newspapers Ltd. shows that English and his newspaper overstepped their bounds in quoting Walsh and Ballester's book, which slanted circumstantial accusations in a libelous manner about Armstrong.

In another part of English's June 13, 2004 article which cited Walsh and Ballester's book, Justice Eady stated that cited examples such as ***** Voet and the Festina affair at the 1998 Tour De France "were not sufficiently linked to claimant (Armstrong)" and that the claims of an increase in the average speed of the Tour De France "fails woefully short of establishing any conduct on behalf of (Armstrong) which brings suspicion on himself and also short of 'strong circumstantial evidence'".

In the qualified privilege section of his judgment, Justice Eady found that the 'tone' of the article was 'quite sensational' and 'likely to stir things up' for the purposes of the book. "Although (the article) claimed merely to 'raise questions', it could hardly be as measured, neutral or impartial reportage."

This is starkly outlined when Justice Eady points out later in his decision that, "The article written by the third defendant (English)...and no attempt was made by (English) or anyone else from the Sunday Times to contact Mr. Armstrong about the allegations they were going to make."

Rather than accede to making the changes to the Sunday Times article called for by Justice Eady in his judgment, Rupert Murdoch's Times Newspapers Ltd. has removed the offending article from its online archive. Although no final judgment on a libel award for Armstrong has been determined, nor is it clear whether Times Newspapers Ltd. will appeal the decision, with Justice Eady refusing to implement a cost-capping order for damages.

That said, besides recouping the $140,000 in costs from his solicitors Schillings, Armstrong could likely win a substantial settlement from Times Newspapers Ltd. over this libel finding, a clear vindication for Armstrong in his ongoing conflict with Irish sportswriter David Walsh, who has been the six-time Tour de France's journalistic bête noire for years.

Eady makes some very interesting observations - which I think are ludicrous.

He appears to disparage the thought that Walsh & Co put forward about the increase in average TDF speeds.
It is widely acknowledged that the 1990's peloton were fuelled by EPO - yet this supposedly clean era can ride more quickly than their drug-propelled
1990's colleagues ??

Eady then waffles on about LA not having the right to defend himself.
Since 1999, Walsh and Co have been banned from all USPS press conferences
during the TDF.
Walsh has stated here (in Ireland) on radio, that he has written repeatedly to
One Ball asking him questions about his performances and Bill Stapleton (LA's
manager) has written back to say that LA doesn't answer questions !
I have Walsh on tape saying this (if someone knows Eady's address, I'll send Eady a copy of Walsh's testimony on Irish radio).

Mr.Murdoch ought to appeal Eady's flawed judgement.
And he ought to invite the learned gentleman to try to cycle at 40 kmph for
3,500 kms !

 

[FredC]

From Cyclingnews.com


As reported by the UK's Guardian newspaper, Lance Armstrong has won a "a significant victory" in a libel suit against media magnate Rupert Murdoch's Sunday Times of London. On December 17, 2004, Hon. Mr. Justice Eady ruled in the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice in London, England in a libel action brought by Lance Armstrong Vs. Times Newspapers Ltd., David Walsh and Alan English. In his 23 page ruling, Mr. Justice Eady examined the article published in the Sunday Times of London on June 13, 2004, written by Alan English, which reports on Times sportswriter David Walsh's book LA Confidentiel (so far only published in France). English's article on the book, written by Walsh and former L'Equipe cycling reporter Pierre Ballester initially alleged that Armstrong was associated with "illicit performance enhancing drugs", a claim Mr. Justice Eady stated that Times Newspapers Ltd. had "no room of advancing a plea of justification", which finds for the libel of Armstrong in the June 13 article.

Justice Eady initially cited a passage in the Times article, written by Walsh's Sunday Times of London colleague Alan English, that says, "'Armstrong is no ordinary cyclist, but there are those who fear that a man who won five Tours de France in a row must have succumbed to the pressures of taking drugs.' The formula 'those who fear that' is not an effective device to avoid libel."

Eady found that this and many other passages in the Sunday Times article were, "In my judgment, sufficiently powerful to colour the whole article. In the face of these (passages), it seems to me that it would indeed be perverse to conclude that the article meant no more than there were some questions needing to be investigated. The defamatory sting about Mr. Armstrong obviously goes well beyond that."

Eady continued, saying that, "The overall effect of the quotations and the events described in the article is to leave readers with the impression that Mr. Armstrong's denials of drug taking beggar belief and are to be taken with a pinch of salt." Justice Eady did refuse to rule on the "meaning" of these accusations, but found further for the libel of Armstrong, citing Justice Sedly's ruling in Jameel vs. Times Newspapers, Ltd. Throughout his decision, Eady upheld attorney Richard Spearman's brief on behalf of Armstrong, who cited example after example where media magnate Rupert Murdoch's Times Newspapers Ltd. had committed libel in other cases. Throughout his ruling, Eady disallowed Times Newspapers Ltd. claims, saying that they are "too vague and general" and had "no direct nexus with claimant."

Eady also explained in his opening remarks that the Sunday Times of London article had been given clear legal guidance in its wording and structure and that David Walsh had also stated that his claims in LA Confidentiel were "circumstantial". However, the judgment in favour of Armstrong against Murdoch's Times Newspapers Ltd. shows that English and his newspaper overstepped their bounds in quoting Walsh and Ballester's book, which slanted circumstantial accusations in a libelous manner about Armstrong.

In another part of English's June 13, 2004 article which cited Walsh and Ballester's book, Justice Eady stated that cited examples such as ***** Voet and the Festina affair at the 1998 Tour De France "were not sufficiently linked to claimant (Armstrong)" and that the claims of an increase in the average speed of the Tour De France "fails woefully short of establishing any conduct on behalf of (Armstrong) which brings suspicion on himself and also short of 'strong circumstantial evidence'".

In the qualified privilege section of his judgment, Justice Eady found that the 'tone' of the article was 'quite sensational' and 'likely to stir things up' for the purposes of the book. "Although (the article) claimed merely to 'raise questions', it could hardly be as measured, neutral or impartial reportage."

This is starkly outlined when Justice Eady points out later in his decision that, "The article written by the third defendant (English)...and no attempt was made by (English) or anyone else from the Sunday Times to contact Mr. Armstrong about the allegations they were going to make."

Rather than accede to making the changes to the Sunday Times article called for by Justice Eady in his judgment, Rupert Murdoch's Times Newspapers Ltd. has removed the offending article from its online archive. Although no final judgment on a libel award for Armstrong has been determined, nor is it clear whether Times Newspapers Ltd. will appeal the decision, with Justice Eady refusing to implement a cost-capping order for damages.

That said, besides recouping the $140,000 in costs from his solicitors Schillings, Armstrong could likely win a substantial settlement from Times Newspapers Ltd. over this libel finding, a clear vindication for Armstrong in his ongoing conflict with Irish sportswriter David Walsh, who has been the six-time Tour de France's journalistic bête noire for years.

Eady makes some very interesting observations - which I think are ludicrous.

He appears to disparage the thought that Walsh & Co put forward about the increase in average TDF speeds.
It is widely acknowledged that the 1990's peloton were fuelled by EPO - yet this supposedly clean era can ride more quickly than their drug-propelled
1990's colleagues ??

Eady then waffles on about LA not having the right to defend himself.
Since 1999, Walsh and Co have been banned from all USPS press conferences
during the TDF.
Walsh has stated here (in Ireland) on radio, that he has written repeatedly to
One Ball asking him questions about his performances and Bill Stapleton (LA's
manager) has written back to say that LA doesn't answer questions !
I have Walsh on tape saying this (if someone knows Eady's address, I'll send Eady a copy of Walsh's testimony on Irish radio).

Mr.Murdoch ought to appeal Eady's flawed judgement.
And he ought to invite the learned gentleman to try to cycle at 40 kmph for
3,500 kms !

Listen here Lim, leave my old mate Eady alone will you, or you may end up appearing before him as well. His address is The Royal Courts of Justice. The Strand. London. He's the Judge who found for Galloway. I'm going to read it up on Lawtel. Back later.

 

[limerickman]

Listen here Lim, leave my old mate Eady alone will you, or you may end up appearing before him as well. His address is The Royal Courts of Justice. The Strand. London. He's the Judge who found for Galloway. I'm going to read it up on Lawtel. Back later.

Yeah, that's the judge who helped G Galloway out - and he was right I think, in that instance.

But to go against D Walsh and Co ?
Me learned friend - according to the report at Cyclingnews.com - has put the boot in to the ST.
I don't think he's got it right but that's only my view.

Does the good judge do any cycling ?

 

[FredC]

Yeah, that's the judge who helped G Galloway out - and he was right I think, in that instance.

But to go against D Walsh and Co ?
Me learned friend - according to the report at Cyclingnews.com - has put the boot in to the ST.
I don't think he's got it right but that's only my view.

Does the good judge do any cycling ?

I've just read the whole lot of 23 pages of legal argument on Lawtel, you know the code I gave you.
Anyway if I were you I'd tone your anti LA campaign down, otherwise you'll be living in a tent on the wet and windy west coast. You must read it. Eady played a blinder again, he's a clever man.
Of course he's a good cyclist, always wears his grey hairy crash hat when he's on the pedal.
Another one in the eye for Murdoch and the Times. Very poor and spurious defence. It must have cost them a fortune. Armstrongs QC was good, just the sort that Eady likes, straightforward. I've said before he has no time for poor Defence. He doesn't let any goals in. I don't think the Times will be appealing, because they will probably have to go before him again, and have no points of case law left to use. Did you know that Walsh dragged Paul Kimmage in the frame?
Do buy a good tent, well worth it in the long run.

 

[FredC]

From Cyclingnews.com


As reported by the UK's Guardian newspaper, Lance Armstrong has won a "a significant victory" in a libel suit against media magnate Rupert Murdoch's Sunday Times of London. On December 17, 2004, Hon. Mr. Justice Eady ruled in the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice in London, England in a libel action brought by Lance Armstrong Vs. Times Newspapers Ltd., David Walsh and Alan English. In his 23 page ruling, Mr. Justice Eady examined the article published in the Sunday Times of London on June 13, 2004, written by Alan English, which reports on Times sportswriter David Walsh's book LA Confidentiel (so far only published in France). English's article on the book, written by Walsh and former L'Equipe cycling reporter Pierre Ballester initially alleged that Armstrong was associated with "illicit performance enhancing drugs", a claim Mr. Justice Eady stated that Times Newspapers Ltd. had "no room of advancing a plea of justification", which finds for the libel of Armstrong in the June 13 article.

Justice Eady initially cited a passage in the Times article, written by Walsh's Sunday Times of London colleague Alan English, that says, "'Armstrong is no ordinary cyclist, but there are those who fear that a man who won five Tours de France in a row must have succumbed to the pressures of taking drugs.' The formula 'those who fear that' is not an effective device to avoid libel."

Eady found that this and many other passages in the Sunday Times article were, "In my judgment, sufficiently powerful to colour the whole article. In the face of these (passages), it seems to me that it would indeed be perverse to conclude that the article meant no more than there were some questions needing to be investigated. The defamatory sting about Mr. Armstrong obviously goes well beyond that."

Eady continued, saying that, "The overall effect of the quotations and the events described in the article is to leave readers with the impression that Mr. Armstrong's denials of drug taking beggar belief and are to be taken with a pinch of salt." Justice Eady did refuse to rule on the "meaning" of these accusations, but found further for the libel of Armstrong, citing Justice Sedly's ruling in Jameel vs. Times Newspapers, Ltd. Throughout his decision, Eady upheld attorney Richard Spearman's brief on behalf of Armstrong, who cited example after example where media magnate Rupert Murdoch's Times Newspapers Ltd. had committed libel in other cases. Throughout his ruling, Eady disallowed Times Newspapers Ltd. claims, saying that they are "too vague and general" and had "no direct nexus with claimant."

Eady also explained in his opening remarks that the Sunday Times of London article had been given clear legal guidance in its wording and structure and that David Walsh had also stated that his claims in LA Confidentiel were "circumstantial". However, the judgment in favour of Armstrong against Murdoch's Times Newspapers Ltd. shows that English and his newspaper overstepped their bounds in quoting Walsh and Ballester's book, which slanted circumstantial accusations in a libelous manner about Armstrong.

In another part of English's June 13, 2004 article which cited Walsh and Ballester's book, Justice Eady stated that cited examples such as ***** Voet and the Festina affair at the 1998 Tour De France "were not sufficiently linked to claimant (Armstrong)" and that the claims of an increase in the average speed of the Tour De France "fails woefully short of establishing any conduct on behalf of (Armstrong) which brings suspicion on himself and also short of 'strong circumstantial evidence'".

In the qualified privilege section of his judgment, Justice Eady found that the 'tone' of the article was 'quite sensational' and 'likely to stir things up' for the purposes of the book. "Although (the article) claimed merely to 'raise questions', it could hardly be as measured, neutral or impartial reportage."

This is starkly outlined when Justice Eady points out later in his decision that, "The article written by the third defendant (English)...and no attempt was made by (English) or anyone else from the Sunday Times to contact Mr. Armstrong about the allegations they were going to make."

Rather than accede to making the changes to the Sunday Times article called for by Justice Eady in his judgment, Rupert Murdoch's Times Newspapers Ltd. has removed the offending article from its online archive. Although no final judgment on a libel award for Armstrong has been determined, nor is it clear whether Times Newspapers Ltd. will appeal the decision, with Justice Eady refusing to implement a cost-capping order for damages.

That said, besides recouping the $140,000 in costs from his solicitors Schillings, Armstrong could likely win a substantial settlement from Times Newspapers Ltd. over this libel finding, a clear vindication for Armstrong in his ongoing conflict with Irish sportswriter David Walsh, who has been the six-time Tour de France's journalistic bête noire for years.

Eady makes some very interesting observations - which I think are ludicrous.

He appears to disparage the thought that Walsh & Co put forward about the increase in average TDF speeds.
It is widely acknowledged that the 1990's peloton were fuelled by EPO - yet this supposedly clean era can ride more quickly than their drug-propelled
1990's colleagues ??

Eady then waffles on about LA not having the right to defend himself.
Since 1999, Walsh and Co have been banned from all USPS press conferences
during the TDF.
Walsh has stated here (in Ireland) on radio, that he has written repeatedly to
One Ball asking him questions about his performances and Bill Stapleton (LA's
manager) has written back to say that LA doesn't answer questions !
I have Walsh on tape saying this (if someone knows Eady's address, I'll send Eady a copy of Walsh's testimony on Irish radio).

Mr.Murdoch ought to appeal Eady's flawed judgement.
And he ought to invite the learned gentleman to try to cycle at 40 kmph for
3,500 kms !

For Christ's sake read the Lawtel doc.
Anyway I'll send a letter to Murdoch to tell him that you will fund the appeal. I sure he will be pleased, but might want a guarantee of a few million from you before he hires a new team. Be careful. When you get your head round the case, you will find that it is the publishers of the text who are responible, and no doubt the authors of LA Confidential will end up before Eady if it not rewritten before it is published in the UK, when the authors themselves along with the publishers would then come under the same lawful scrutiny.

 

[limerickman]

For Christ's sake read the Lawtel doc.
Anyway I'll send a letter to Murdoch to tell him that you will fund the appeal. I sure he will be pleased, but might want a guarantee of a few million from you before he hires a new team. Be careful. When you get your head round the case, you will find that it is the publishers of the text who are responible, and no doubt the authors of LA Confidential will end up before Eady if it not rewritten before it is published in the UK, when the authors themselves along with the publishers would then come under the same lawful scrutiny.

Fred - I will go in and have a look at Lawtel and read same.

Justice Eady seems to be a straight forward fellow.

I merely related the DW stuff to tell you what he (DW) has said about LA on the national airwaves here in Ireland.
DW has stated categorically that LA has blanked him and has refused to answer questions.
Not that this has anything to do with the case in London but I think DW is genuine (in fact I know he is genuine - my mate Kimmage endorses DW fully).

Let me read Lawtel and I will come back to you !

 

[FredC]

Fred - I will go in and have a look at Lawtel and read same.

Justice Eady seems to be a straight forward fellow.

I merely related the DW stuff to tell you what he (DW) has said about LA on the national airwaves here in Ireland.
DW has stated categorically that LA has blanked him and has refused to answer questions.
Not that this has anything to do with the case in London but I think DW is genuine (in fact I know he is genuine - my mate Kimmage endorses DW fully).

Let me read Lawtel and I will come back to you !

Good so, Lim, and I can categorically vouch for him, whether he would reciprocate is another matter altogether.
There is another man in this area of Libel Law named as LJ Gray who uses the same same case law as they all do. It is a most fascinating subject. These men are the highest arbitors in the land of fair justice. If you endeavour to follow the concept and practicalities of the incremential changes in the law for society in general, it is they who interpret, and amend the law using case law. These men and ladies are few and far between in the whole of society, and that's how we keep our civilised system away from the Monarchy and the Government of the day.
All your other issues are no issues at all, unless LA wants to take it on.
Jesus Lim, I could write reams about the subject.

 

[limerickman]

Good so, Lim, and I can categorically vouch for him, whether he would reciprocate is another matter altogether.
There is another man in this area of Libel Law named as LJ Gray who uses the same same case law as they all do. It is a most fascinating subject. These men are the highest arbitors in the land of fair justice. If you endeavour to follow the concept and practicalities of the incremential changes in the law for society in general, it is they who interpret, and amend the law using case law. These men and ladies are few and far between in the whole of society, and that's how we keep our civilised system away from the Monarchy and the Government of the day.
All your other issues are no issues at all, unless LA wants to take it on.
Jesus Lim, I could write reams about the subject.

We have the same concept here.
Judges assimilate the body of evidence and then divine a verdict.
If a new aspect comes about - they then create a precedent.

Much like the Reynolds Case in the London High Court.
Albert Reynolds was accused of being a "gombeen man" in the ST.
He sued for libel - he won his case, but only got 1p in damages.
Court held that he had been libelled, but that the damage to his reputation only merited 1p in damages.

I have heard it said that only those barristers who are making relatively modest money, decide to accept a place on the bench.
The top Senior Counsels here (equivalent of your QC's) rarely allow join the bench because it means a huge drop in earnings.

 

[FredC]

We have the same concept here.
Judges assimilate the body of evidence and then divine a verdict.
If a new aspect comes about - they then create a precedent.

Much like the Reynolds Case in the London High Court.
Albert Reynolds was accused of being a "gombeen man" in the ST.
He sued for libel - he won his case, but only got 1p in damages.
Court held that he had been libelled, but that the damage to his reputation only merited 1p in damages.

I have heard it said that only those barristers who are making relatively modest money, decide to accept a place on the bench.
The top Senior Counsels here (equivalent of your QC's) rarely allow join the bench because it means a huge drop in earnings.

In your first paragraph, 3rd line is yes, but after due consideration, as to modern day attributions to the protection of all classes of society These incremential changes that have been accepted are known as case law, whether it be Civil, Criminal, or Common have evolved with normal life for all citizens.
The case of Reynolds v Times was not only a slur on Albert, but it was a Landmark case against the type of printed issue we see perpetrated from time and time against the defensible who don't have neither the time nor the inclination to pick up the cudgell.

Para 3.
Baffles me completely, How can you get to to top of the impartial justice tree by being a QC who earns no money, can't support himself or his family, is a failure, has no reputation in any aspect. Well, pack it in and become an MP

 

[limerickman]

Para 3.
Baffles me completely, How can you get to to top of the impartial justice tree by being a QC who earns no money, can't support himself or his family, is a failure, has no reputation in any aspect. Well, pack it in and become an MP

Here we have SC's (Senior Cousels) who are earning huge money (the top guys are getting at least 1million + per year.
Many of them are the finest legal minds around.

Some of them have been approached by the political parties for appointment to the High Court/Supreme Court.
And a lot of them have turned these opportunities down because (it is said) that the drop in earnings is too steep for them.

The ones that do take up the bench positions are those senior counsels who are earning less than the real high flyers.
What these SC's would be on - is anyone's guess.
But they do not earn as much as their colleagues who refuse to take up a position on the bench (it is said).

 

[FredC]

Here we have SC's (Senior Cousels) who are earning huge money (the top guys are getting at least 1million + per year.
Many of them are the finest legal minds around.

Some of them have been approached by the political parties for appointment to the High Court/Supreme Court.
And a lot of them have turned these opportunities down because (it is said) that the drop in earnings is too steep for them.

The ones that do take up the bench positions are those senior counsels who are earning less than the real high flyers.
What these SC's would be on - is anyone's guess.
But they do not earn as much as their colleagues who refuse to take up a position on the bench (it is said).

The judiciary is normally composed of persons who have no need to be 'on the make' as it may be so described. It is a privileged position and not given lightly to fair minded individuals who will do their best to administer the law and statute without favour in all circumstances. Hey, where's Mugabe?

 

[limerickman]

The judiciary is normally composed of persons who have no need to be 'on the make' as it may be so described. It is a privileged position and not given lightly to fair minded individuals who will do their best to administer the law and statute without favour in all circumstances. Hey, where's Mugabe?

I agree.
But in this country, a lot of the High Court and Supreme Court appointtees are done on political affiliations-basis.

but I take your point.

 

[tarczan]

Sounds like a good ruling to me. Thinking or believing something is meaningless. There are no facts to substantiate the writers suspicions of drug use other than "He's fast- he must be cheating."

 

[FredC]

Sounds like a good ruling to me. Thinking or believing something is meaningless. There are no facts to substantiate the writers suspicions of drug use other than "He's fast- he must be cheating."

It was a legal decision in this case and not a ruling. It was based on a publication of ill founded conjectural facts to either mislead or influence the reader to believe that Lance Armstrong had been an habitual user of proscribed substances in order to achieve his success. A ruling in law has a different connutation. Other than that, I shall make no further comment, apart from agree that the decision was a correct one.

 

[davidmc]

It was a legal decision in this case and not a ruling. It was based on a publication of ill founded conjectural facts to either mislead or influence the reader to believe that Lance Armstrong had been an habitual user of proscribed substances in order to achieve his success. A ruling in law has a different connutation. Other than that, I shall make no further comment, apart from agree that the decision was a correct one.

Did'nt a girl, in the book, claim that LA sent her to go pick up a package (dope)? And whats this buisiness about him not answering questions. I would say, if I were in the governing body,- "fine, you don't answer questions, you don't ride in the peleton." The event has taken a severe batterring, as of late, due to drug use. I don't tell my non-cycling friends that I follow some of the events because they refer to them as "dopers". I don't particularly care for him & I live in "Jesusland" (USA) I don't care how good of a cyclist he is. Being an athlete does not make someone admirable. That's the same thing as saying " that person is strong, therefore they must be good-hearted." Give me a break . Having a "pop star" girlfriend does not make someone admirable. Having teammates form a protective envelope around you does not make someone admirable.There is more to it than that. You now know where I stand. I'm not one of those "LA,USA,Hooray" bandwagon people. Now, on another note, if he were English, Irish, or Scottish would you chaps be as concerned?

 

[limerickman]

Did'nt a girl, in the book, claim that LA sent her to go pick up a package (dope)? And whats this buisiness about him not answering questions. I would say, if I were in the governing body,- "fine, you don't answer questions, you don't ride in the peleton." The event has taken a severe batterring, as of late, due to drug use. I don't tell my non-cycling friends that I follow some of the events because they refer to them as "dopers". I don't particularly care for him & I live in "Jesusland" (USA) I don't care how good of a cyclist he is. Being an athlete does not make someone admirable. That's the same thing as saying " that person is strong, therefore they must be good-hearted." Give me a break . Having a "pop star" girlfriend does not make someone admirable. Having teammates form a protective envelope around you does not make someone admirable.There is more to it than that. You now know where I stand. I'm not one of those "LA,USA,Hooray" bandwagon people. Now, on another note, if he were English, Irish, or Scottish would you chaps be as concerned?

The lady that you refer to is Ms.Emma O'Reilly, soigneur to the USPS team.
She's a Dublin girl.
She says that LA asked her to collect a package containing illegal substances.
She related this to David Walsh in his book LA Confidentiel.

As regards whether or not this issue would carry the same prominance here if the cyclist concerned was Irish, Scottish, English - let me tell you that there
was a real kerfuffle when a couple of drug stories broke.

Irish swimmer Michelle Smith was deemed to have tampered with a drug sample in 1998 and was banned from international competition.
Michelle won three gold medals at the Atlanta Games in swimming in 1996.
When the subsequent scandal broke - there was massive controversy.
Her Olympic performances were questioned thoroughly.

When Stephen Roches name was mentioned in court during the Michele Ferrari
trial - the controversy that broke here was massive also.
His name was found on a list of cyclists deemed to have been supplied with EPO in the early 1990's.
The media scrum around that issue was huge.

In Ireland, our sport is very dear to us.
Sean Kelly is a god here - as was Stepehn Roche.
Sport, in the Irish psyche, is more important than politics/business.
In this country, we still have a very corinthian attitude - play fair - so when a sports controversy breaks, it gets massive coverage.

 

[zapper]

The lady that you refer to is Ms.Emma O'Reilly, soigneur to the USPS team.
She's a Dublin girl.

Must be your sister…She shares your penchant for false accusations….While I’m on the subject, I demand you withdraw your false accusations about Lance immediately!

 

[limerickman]

Must be your sister…She shares your penchant for false accusations….While I’m on the subject, I demand you withdraw your false accusations about Lance immediately!

eh, no Emma O'Reilly isn't my sister.

What false allegations - he's a dopeur, a cheat.

 

[zapper]

eh, no Emma O'Reilly isn't my sister.

What false allegations - he's a dopeur, a cheat.

Yeah, I read it on one of those sites you've been googlin...sacharin 57a "Lance Armstrong is an American Devil and the only way he could win is to use juice it up cause limerickman says so. He was born from a woman during her menstral cycle"...What a hoot!

Right!

 

[limerickman]

Yeah, I read it on one of those sites you've been googlin...sacharin 57a "Lance Armstrong is an American Devil and the only way he could win is to use juice it up cause limerickman says so. He was born from a woman during her menstral cycle"...What a hoot!

Right!

You're being facetious.

Listen I'll send you a copy of the 1992-1996 TDF tapes if you want to see how LA actually cycles.
Just watch him as he is destroyed by Indurain, Pantani, Zulle, Jalabert.

PS : as part of your continuing cycling education, Miguel Indurain, Marco Pantani, Alex Zulle and Laurent Jalabert are all European cyclists.

Class dismissed.