Justice Eady - what does he know ?

[zapper]

You're being facetious.

No ****?

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.

Oh, you mean when cancer was destroying his body? I wonder how they faired against kids in the special olympics?

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

As part of your "zapper" training, I knew who these chaps are! Btw, old marco just couldn't handle the crushing humilation that LA laid on him now could he?

I've got your class....hanging right here....

 

[limerickman]

Oh, you mean when cancer was destroying his body? I wonder how they faired against kids in the special olympics?

As part of your "zapper" training, I knew who these chaps are! Btw, old marco just couldn't handle the crushing humilation that LA laid on him now could he?

As part of your further education - professional cyclists have to take out a licence to cycle in the pro ranks.
Part of the licence process is the attendance at medicals to check for illness, disease etc.
Motorola (LA's team at the time) would have been required to do a full medical of their client throughout the period 1992-1996.
Strange how the cancer sufferer never managed to fail a medical between 1992-1996 ?
Maybe it was part of the vast conspiracy theory that you behold ?
So if he didn't have cancer in 1995 (and he passed his medicals), for example, how come he finished the TDF 1 hour 30 mins behind Indurain ?

Interesting that you refer to Pantani.
Lets look at the 1995 TDF.
Pantani finished 13th overall - over an hour faster than the non-cancer suffering 1995 version of LA.
Imagine his surprise therefore when a relative non-entity like Armstrong (1992-1996) is miraculously transfigured in to the great (natural - ha) climber at Coercheval in 2000.
Pantani recognised a cheat when he saw one - a UCI endorsed cheat called LA, at that.

 

[FredC]

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

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

Be careful here Lim. Are you sure you've read and absorbed the 23 pages of legal argument to pave the way for the trial. I know of one case that might come off, or may be settled out of court involving people who we are familiar with. This case involves certain allegations published on an internet message board. And no, it isn't me.

 

[FredC]

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.

Well Pantani wasn't exactly the shining light of virtue was he? Perhaps something might transpire out of Hamiltons case which is due to be heard shortly. It's all got something to do with HBOC's surely.

 

[limerickman]

Be careful here Lim. Are you sure you've read and absorbed the 23 pages of legal argument to pave the way for the trial. I know of one case that might come off, or may be settled out of court involving people who we are familiar with. This case involves certain allegations published on an internet message board. And no, it isn't me.

I tried to access Lawtel and I couldn't (at 2.00am this morning).
So I need to read the 23 page judgement.

Well if Mr.Armstrong wants to sue me - he can feel free to do so.

His action in France, I am told, is lukewarm.
So much so that Walsh & Co are looking at publishing the book in England and the USA.
(This is from a source very close to the parties concerned).

The ST case - as far as I understand - was to do with the reporting, by the ST, of the contents of the book LA Confidentiel.
That was LA's case, as far as I understand, against the ST.

The allegations made in the book are a separate issue - as I understand it.
To fight the allegations in the book directly, LA and Co would have to enter a french court and testify that Walsh & Co have libelled him and they would be required to disprove the allegations that Walsh has made.

Before publishing the book, I am told that the people who made the doping allegations against LA have all undertaken to testify in open court in France, if LA intends to sue.
I have got this from parties close to the publishing of the book.

Therefore, the likes of Greg LeMond and Emma O'Reilly and others appear to be prepared to go in to a witness box to vouch that what they said about LA in the book, has been accurately stated in Walsh's book.

I am not a solicitor/barrister and have only a laymans understanding of the law, but I am reliably informed that the publishers and authors have their homework done and this is why they chose to publish in France initially, with the option of publishing in UK and the USA later.

Here's an interesting link with Davi Walsh discussing the book.

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/6295.0.html

 

[limerickman]

Well Pantani wasn't exactly the shining light of virtue was he? Perhaps something might transpire out of Hamiltons case which is due to be heard shortly. It's all got something to do with HBOC's surely.

And that's my point - Marco wasn't a shining light and knowing that he himself was doping, what do you think went through his mind when he saw LA beside him at Coercheval ?

Picture it.

Five years previously, you have destroyed the bloke cycling next to you.
He wasn't even fit to lace your cycling shoes.
In the meantime he has come back from cancer and can cycle up Coercheval as quickly as you (Pantani) - and does so while proclaiming to be clean !
And in the meantime, you (Pantani) are subject to the biggest witch hunt in cycling in the preceding (from 2000) years !

Ludicrous.
One person is villified as a cheat and the other is accepted and endorsed, even though that person improvement is highly questionable.

 

[limerickman]

Well Pantani wasn't exactly the shining light of virtue was he? Perhaps something might transpire out of Hamiltons case which is due to be heard shortly. It's all got something to do with HBOC's surely.

And that's my point - Marco wasn't a shining light and knowing that he himself was doping, what do you think went through his mind when he saw LA beside him at Coercheval ?

Picture it.

Five years previously, you have destroyed the bloke cycling next to you.
He wasn't even fit to lace your cycling shoes.
In the meantime he has come back from cancer and can cycle up Coercheval as quickly as you (Pantani) - and does so while proclaiming to be clean !
And in the meantime, you (Pantani) are subject to the biggest witch hunt in cycling in the preceding (from 2000) years !

Ludicrous.
One person is villified as a cheat and the other is accepted and endorsed, even though that person improvement is highly questionable.

 

[tarczan]

There may be valid reasons for LA being suspect, but until real evidence is presented, it is all just heasrsay and gossip.

By these rules, any champion is suspect,and maybe with todays' chemistry that is proper. I wonder what it will be like in 50 years.

 

[FredC]

I tried to access Lawtel and I couldn't (at 2.00am this morning).
So I need to read the 23 page judgement.

OK then code in, Pick UK law, tick case law, type in Armstrong at the top header, and pick dates 10-20 Dec 2004. on the opening page you will see the case. Go top left corner, and it should come up on Acrobat reader. try it now. Any probs get back to me.

 

[FredC]

There may be valid reasons for LA being suspect, but until real evidence is presented, it is all just heasrsay and gossip.

By these rules, any champion is suspect,and maybe with todays' chemistry that is proper. I wonder what it will be like in 50 years.

That's my point of view also. None of the allegations have been proved, that LA did cheat to win. The slurs against his character are libellous, defamatory, and are of detriment, but not in a financial sense. I could tell you all some tales, all true, but I won't because that's not how riders play the game in the peloton. If you get caught, so be it. You don't do what Phillip Gaumont did to David Millar, just because you got the sack. So I doubt whether Gaumont will be riding for anyone in the future.
Believe me when I tell that the men in white coats will always be one jump ahead.

 

[limerickman]

There may be valid reasons for LA being suspect, but until real evidence is presented, it is all just heasrsay and gossip.

By these rules, any champion is suspect,and maybe with todays' chemistry that is proper. I wonder what it will be like in 50 years.

I agree.

But the issue here is that when LA is asked to quantify and to explain his improvement, we get a series of excuses which don't quantify his improvement.
We get waffle about weight loss, we get waffle about hard work.
And in addition, we receive platitudes about his being clean.

Now if people accept his explanations and his platitudes - fine.

But others like me, do not accept his explanations nor do we have to listen to his platitudes either.

 

[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).

P1. They might well be, and obviously merit these rewards. Failed ones will become superfluous to the senior legal system.

P2. A lot of our failed barristers become MP's. The only political appointed person in our judicary is the Lord Chancellor, other than that the judicary is a self appointing body.

P3. By the time that a barrister becomes a senior judge money will not be an issue, as they have all been successful QC's.

We will be carrying on as normal in the judicary. We are not scrapping the Lord Chancellors position on the Woolsack, nor will be having a Supreme Court along American lines, and we are keeping the Law Lords.
So it will be impossible to have an Attorney General (Lord Chancellor) like that ******* Gonzalez, in fact he wouldn't have made it to be a Judge here in the UK.

 

[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 ?

Did you notice who represented the Times in the Armstrong case? None other than that useless woman Heather Rogers. Remember the useless one at the Hutton Enquiry?

 

[limerickman]

Did you notice who represented the Times in the Armstrong case? None other than that useless woman Heather Rogers. Remember the useless one at the Hutton Enquiry?

Followed your lead and have just read Justice Eady's judgement (pages 1-21 were only provided - as for 22 and 23 Acrobat did not publish same, for some reason), at Lawtel.

It's a very comprehensive judgement - in this laymans opinion.

Justice Eady's rulling is very detailed - he goes through the article, line by line, and makes his judgement on the three tiers.
From my reading of it - Justice Eady allows certain sentances to stay intact and removes other sentances where he perceives there to be a defamatory aspect.

But he only judges on the ST article and not on the book LA Confidentiel.

 

[FredC]

Followed your lead and have just read Justice Eady's judgement (pages 1-21 were only provided - as for 22 and 23 Acrobat did not publish same, for some reason), at Lawtel.

It's a very comprehensive judgement - in this laymans opinion.

Justice Eady's rulling is very detailed - he goes through the article, line by line, and makes his judgement on the three tiers.
From my reading of it - Justice Eady allows certain sentances to stay intact and removes other sentances where he perceives there to be a defamatory aspect.

But he only judges on the ST article and not on the book LA Confidentiel.

I am so pleased that you have finally read rules of the game according to Law. Pages 22-23 are of no interest in the case to be heard, they only refer to cost capping, in that the representatives on both sides, that is for the claimant and the defendent do not exceed into the realms of the stratosphere from that time on. It does not include fiscal damages for either the claimant, or the defendent in a resolution, nor the amounts agreed.
The whole case in this issue is about the publication of an article in a newspaper, and not about a book named LA Confidential, that publication is a different matter altogether, and has no relevance. Although Rogers, who as far I can see from the list of representatives is not a QC.
Lim my old pal, that P2 and P3, are marking out the ground, and the ground rules to start the game in one the highest courts available.
The misconception you have is that Helen Rogers trawled all case law in Libel cases and came up with nothing at all, then she washed her knickers in a substance called vehemence to trawl again in a weak and polluted pond. None of her prospective challenges made any inroads to defend the Times against the publication of the offending article, and were dismissed before the case was heard.
The issues of privileges of 1,2,3 are only of concern to the the parties involved, and were struck out in general because there was no substantive evidence to make it an issue, and would hinder the progression of the case.
I note that there was no objection lodged by either party.
They are not sentances but points of law he refers to.
The issue in this case was an article published by the Times, and not a book.

 

[limerickman]

I am so pleased that you have finally read rules of the game according to Law. Pages 22-23 are of no interest in the case to be heard, they only refer to cost capping, in that the representatives on both sides, that is for the claimant and the defendent do not exceed into the realms of the stratosphere from that time on. It does not include fiscal damages for either the claimant, or the defendent in a resolution, nor the amounts agreed.
The whole case in this issue is about the publication of an article in a newspaper, and not about a book named LA Confidential, that publication is a different matter altogether, and has no relevance. Although Rogers, who as far I can see from the list of representatives is not a QC.
Lim my old pal, that P2 and P3, are marking out the ground, and the ground rules to start the game in one the highest courts available.
The misconception you have is that Helen Rogers trawled all case law in Libel cases and came up with nothing at all, then she washed her knickers in a substance called vehemence to trawl again in a weak and polluted pond. None of her prospective challenges made any inroads to defend the Times against the publication of the offending article, and were dismissed before the case was heard.
The issues of privileges of 1,2,3 are only of concern to the the parties involved, and were struck out in general because there was no substantive evidence to make it an issue, and would hinder the progression of the case.
I note that there was no objection lodged by either party.
They are not sentances but points of law he refers to.
The issue in this case was an article published by the Times, and not a book.

I'm a layman - so please indulge me.

Sections 50-100, as I read them, Justice Eady takes the article line by line and says I can let this line remain but I cannot allow the inclusion of this line/that line.
Is he referring to the article ?
You seem to be saying that he's referring to points of law and not sentances from the article in the ST.

Eady goes to great lengths to explain the concept of suspicion and I can follow his thoughts.

I'll read the judgement again - I ain't a lawyer, I'm an accountant and I have little or no legal knowledge (Law of Contract, Law of Tort and the Companies
Act are about the extent of my limited legal knowledge).
But thanks for the link - most interesting reading.

 

[FredC]

I'm a layman - so please indulge me.

Sections 50-100, as I read them, Justice Eady takes the article line by line and says I can let this line remain but I cannot allow the inclusion of this line/that line.
Is he referring to the article ?
You seem to be saying that he's referring to points of law and not sentances from the article in the ST.

Eady goes to great lengths to explain the concept of suspicion and I can follow his thoughts.

I'll read the judgement again - I ain't a lawyer, I'm an accountant and I have little or no legal knowledge (Law of Contract, Law of Tort and the Companies
Act are about the extent of my limited legal knowledge).
But thanks for the link - most interesting reading.

Eady takes all the propositions put before him on due and propositions from either side in what is a debate, which incurs considerable gain or loss from either party, in legal practice this is known as a game before a referee, who in this and many other cases no party objects to his participation to toss up the coin.
I am sure that even you must agree that Eady kept his eye on the ball. Your opposite viewpoint would never succeed, as would a counter-claim in law by the Times.
All their spurious points of law were defeated by case law, and I doubt that they will contest their propositions to the contrary.

Be jasus Lim, Oim only an old boike roider, what the feck y'expectin. BRAINS?

 

[limerickman]

Eady takes all the propositions put before him on due and propositions from either side in what is a debate, which incurs considerable gain or loss from either party, in legal practice this is known as a game before a referee, who in this and many other cases no party objects to his participation to toss up the coin.
I am sure that even you must agree that Eady kept his eye on the ball. Your opposite viewpoint would never succeed, as would a counter-claim in law by the Times.
All their spurious points of law were defeated by case law, and I doubt that they will contest their propositions to the contrary.

Be jasus Lim, Oim only an old boike roider, what the feck y'expectin. BRAINS?

hats off to Eady - he discusses Ferrari, LeMond etc.
He does keep his eye on the ball.

Brains and cycling.
Interesting story coming up.

The founder of the Ras Tailteann here in Ireland was a guy called Joe Christle.
Who's he ?
Well he was a guy born in a working class area of Dublin, who became involved in republicanism at a young age and conducted the 1956-1962 Northern Campaign for the old IRA.

At the same time, he also managed to study and qualify as a barrister and an accountant.
Was called to the Bar but never practiced because he said he wanted to prove a point by getting to the finish.

He was the dean of my alma mater, when I crossed paths with him.
The single greatest influence on my life, outside of family.
I never agreed with his Republican viewpoint but I respected his achievement and his energy to progress himself, from what was a tough start in life.

The man was a socialist - advocated free access to education.
Also he was a great cyclist.
He started and organised the Ras from scratch in 1953.
His three sons all qualified in the professions (Mel is a barrister, Joe is a doc and Terry is a surgeon).
His sons boxed for Ireland - two of them won the Merkin Golden Gloves (beating, I think, Tyson in one instance. They also boxed ABA - one of them beat Bruno. Mel also cycled the Ras at the age of 14 !!).

BRF and yourself may have come across him - although he wasn't too keen about British riders given his background.
He did allow John "Gino" Goddard, from England, to cycle in the 1963 Ras and subsequent races.
Christle would have opposed McQuaid and Co.

Great man.
brains and cycling.

 

[FredC]

hats off to Eady - he discusses Ferrari, LeMond etc.
He does keep his eye on the ball.

Brains and cycling.
Interesting story coming up.

The founder of the Ras Tailteann here in Ireland was a guy called Joe Christle.
Who's he ?
Well he was a guy born in a working class area of Dublin, who became involved in republicanism at a young age and conducted the 1956-1962 Northern Campaign for the old IRA.

At the same time, he also managed to study and qualify as a barrister and an accountant.
Was called to the Bar but never practiced because he said he wanted to prove a point by getting to the finish.

He was the dean of my alma mater, when I crossed paths with him.
The single greatest influence on my life, outside of family.
I never agreed with his Republican viewpoint but I respected his achievement and his energy to progress himself, from what was a tough start in life.

The man was a socialist - advocated free access to education.
Also he was a great cyclist.
He started and organised the Ras from scratch in 1953.
His three sons all qualified in the professions (Mel is a barrister, Joe is a doc and Terry is a surgeon).
His sons boxed for Ireland - two of them won the Merkin Golden Gloves (beating, I think, Tyson in one instance. They also boxed ABA - one of them beat Bruno. Mel also cycled the Ras at the age of 14 !!).

BRF and yourself may have come across him - although he wasn't too keen about British riders given his background.
He did allow John "Gino" Goddard, from England, to cycle in the 1963 Ras and subsequent races.
Christle would have opposed McQuaid and Co.

Great man.
brains and cycling.

He sounds OK to me, I was not evolved enough in 1963 to ride the Ras. Oi wouldnt moind a good row wi'im. Oil tell him how many I caught after the Deal Bombing in Holland. C'mon now wave ye fist about Christie oive got better friends than you from the sod.

 

[limerickman]

He sounds OK to me, I was not evolved enough in 1963 to ride the Ras. Oi wouldnt moind a good row wi'im. Oil tell him how many I caught after the Deal Bombing in Holland. C'mon now wave ye fist about Christie oive got better friends than you from the sod.

His views moderated somewhat by the time I met him.

He died six years ago - worryingly the provos posted a commemoration for him in "An Phoblacht".
P O'Neill acknowledged his great work in blowing up B Special barracks in 1956.
(He sat his Bar exams in Dublin on the morning of the attacks - and then travelled North to take part in attacks - no one was killed in these actions).

I wanted to go to the funeral but the Special Branch swarm over all those Republican funerals and you don't need to be identified with the Provos.