Justice Eady - what does he know ?

[davidmc]

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.

I'm w/ you Lim- "What false allegations - he's a dopeur, a cheat." but we better watch out for Murkian nationalist sentiment.

 

[tarczan]

The cancer did help LA. He weighed about 175# before, with a big upper body from swimming and triathlons. After the cancer he is 157#, and the weight loss would make a huge difference in climbing.

You would have to be naive not to suspect him, but you think someone would come up with something solid by now.

 

[jhuskey]

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?

I don't know about law in the Uk but know a fair bit about US courts.
In regard to "a girl making a remark" it is not admissable unless the person is named and these statements generally can not be used as evidence even if in writing unless the witness appears to testify and verify the information.

Unsubstantiated documents are generally not allowed into evidence unless they are the basis of the claim or charge and parts of documents can be withheld at the discretion of the court.
At least that is a portion of how it works here but each judge has their own style of interpretation of the law.

 

[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.

No, not quite, the three tiers are of qualified privilege.
Eady strikes out the applications that will not succeed because there is nothing in this case that they refer to, and he leaves in applications that can be heard that might have some relevance as to the eventual outcome. He has no interest at all (not quite true) in the perception of the particulars of defamation. This is the battleground for the Claimant and the Defendent to substantiate their cases, and for him to eventually decide according to law.

 

[FredC]

I don't know about law in the Uk but know a fair bit about US courts.
In regard to "a girl making a remark" it is not admissable unless the person is named and these statements generally can not be used as evidence even if in writing unless the witness appears to testify and verify the information.

Unsubstantiated documents are generally not allowed into evidence unless they are the basis of the claim or charge and parts of documents can be withheld at the discretion of the court.
At least that is a portion of how it works here but each judge has their own style of interpretation of the law.

Although this is not the case. Look at it this way, a female in this case goes to collect a packet of dope. It doesn't mean that it was LA's use. It's a bit like a vegetarian going to the butchers for some meat, it doesn't mean that the vegetarian ate it.
In our country Judges might have their own little idiosyncrasies, but they cannot make up the law on the hoof. Unlike your Attorney General Gonzalez. We have a few top libel judges Lord Justice Gray is another one, but the outcome would have been the same. Both good men, and they don't believe it's OK for prisoners to have their organs pulverised. Hey where's Judge Roy Bean, in the White House?
I'll tell you something else, if that LAConfidential book is published here in it's present form Lance will get a fortune, It's more than likely he'll appear before the same Judge as well, or Gray.

 

[jhuskey]

Although this is not the case. Look at it this way, a female in this case goes to collect a packet of dope. It doesn't mean that it was LA's use. It's a bit like a vegetarian going to the butchers for some meat, it doesn't mean that the vegetarian ate it.
In our country Judges might have their own little idiosyncrasies, but they cannot make up the law on the hoof. Unlike your Attorney General Gonzalez. We have a few top libel judges Lord Justice Gray is another one, but the outcome would have been the same. Both good men, and they don't believe it's OK for prisoners to have their organs pulverised. Hey where's Judge Roy Bean, in the White House?
I'll tell you something else, if that LAConfidential book is published here in it's present form Lance will get a fortune, It's more than likely he'll appear before the same Judge as well, or Gray.

Make up the law? Well they call it interpretation of the law but I guess you could interpret that as making up the law. I guess Bill Clinton said it beat in his testimony on the Monica Lewinsky scandal when he asked "what do you mean by is".
Lance will most likely die a millionaire either way....a happy one remains to be seen. The court system here is a little wild at times not at all what the general public sees on TV.
I just settle a ski case just yesterday from 1988 and you say the wheels of justice turn slowly.

 

[FredC]

Make up the law? Well they call it interpretation of the law but I guess you could interpret that as making up the law. I guess Bill Clinton said it beat in his testimony on the Monica Lewinsky scandal when he asked "what do you mean by is".
Lance will most likely die a millionaire either way....a happy one remains to be seen. The court system here is a little wild at times not at all what the general public sees on TV.
I just settle a ski case just yesterday from 1988 and you say the wheels of justice turn slowly.

I saw that TV with Specter and Gonzalez, and the only thing I can say is if that scenario happened here then Gonzalez would have been forced to resign. He's a disgrace. That piece was shown all around the world.

 

[micron]

according to Procycling, we're all jumping the gun.

Eady struck out one part of the defence ('qualified privilege') but is still allowing a 'reasonable grounds to suspect' justification defence.

so not necessarily as wonderful for Armstrong as all his acolytes avowed...

Full story here - Procycling

 

[davidmc]

according to Procycling, we're all jumping the gun.

Eady struck out one part of the defense ('qualified privilege') but is still allowing a 'reasonable grounds to suspect' justification defense.

so not necessarily as wonderful for Armstrong as all his acolytes avowed...

Full story here - Procycling

Very succinct post Micron. My view on the subject is- even if he were guilty, most lawyers would recommend he mount a vigorous defense as to seem pious & beyond reproach. I'm not one of his "acolytes" so the outcome is of little consequence to me. A more methodical & regularly administered testing regimen would solve the whole mess then cycling could have some of the "lustre" returned to it, of days gone by.

 

[FredC]

according to Procycling, we're all jumping the gun.

Eady struck out one part of the defence ('qualified privilege') but is still allowing a 'reasonable grounds to suspect' justification defence.

so not necessarily as wonderful for Armstrong as all his acolytes avowed...

Full story here - Procycling

You've obviously not read the full text. That is not the full story in Procycling. Now can you write an article on Qualified Privilege for me.
Now then, would you like a wager on the outcome, a few hundred perhaps. I'm for Armstrong to win.

 

[micron]

Oh, I'm not saying that the litigious Mr A won't ultimately prevail but I thought the tone of the Procycling article was pretty even handed - and somewhat admonitory towards certain sites that have trumpeted an Armstrong victory over Walsh. I simply chose to pick out the fact that Justice Eady will let them argue on 'reasonable grounds to suspect' which seems slightly more damning than the 'honest guv, I honestly and without improper motive thought the statements I was making were true' defence of qualified privilege.

I would have thought News International would have been happy to lose that defence if it meant they kept 'reasonable grounds to suspect' - but what would I know?

 

[FredC]

Oh, I'm not saying that the litigious Mr A won't ultimately prevail but I thought the tone of the Procycling article was pretty even handed - and somewhat admonitory towards certain sites that have trumpeted an Armstrong victory over Walsh. I simply chose to pick out the fact that Justice Eady will let them argue on 'reasonable grounds to suspect' which seems slightly more damning than the 'honest guv, I honestly and without improper motive thought the statements I was making were true' defence of qualified privilege.

I would have thought News International would have been happy to lose that defence if it meant they kept 'reasonable grounds to suspect' - but what would I know?

Please do read the text and the references therein, you will no doubt learn a lot if you study it for strike outs and case law. It is a good example of pre trial ground rulings. It might take some time to read the references eg Reynolds v the Times, and the others, but will stand you in good stead, to this, as to the poorly presented defence compiled by Rogers on behalf of the Times.
Can't tempt you on having a wager first it seems.
Read the case law references and you will understand qualified privilege much better.
The article in Procycling didn't inform the reader as to what happened before Eady, it really said nothing of opinion.

 

[FredC]

Make up the law? Well they call it interpretation of the law but I guess you could interpret that as making up the law. I guess Bill Clinton said it beat in his testimony on the Monica Lewinsky scandal when he asked "what do you mean by is".
Lance will most likely die a millionaire either way....a happy one remains to be seen. The court system here is a little wild at times not at all what the general public sees on TV.
I just settle a ski case just yesterday from 1988 and you say the wheels of justice turn slowly.

For the life of me, and I have given it deep cigar smoking thought, the question must be what has Clinton/Lewinsky got to do with law, apart from impeachment?
I note that you use the word 'scandal'. Please explain it in legal context.
It is of no consequence whether Lance Armstrong is a wealthy person, or not. The same applies to his future, in law no consideration is given to a persons standing, it is given to lawful applications to defends ones position and reputation in society.
From the construction of your last paragraph, you must be indeed a Judge, as you say that 'you have just settled a case'. Therefore, I raise my hat to you, learned friend.

 

[jhuskey]

For the life of me, and I have given it deep cigar smoking thought, the question must be what has Clinton/Lewinsky got to do with law, apart from impeachment?
I note that you use the word 'scandal'. Please explain it in legal context.
It is of no consequence whether Lance Armstrong is a wealthy person, or not. The same applies to his future, in law no consideration is given to a persons standing, it is given to lawful applications to defends ones position and reputation in society.
From the construction of your last paragraph, you must be indeed a Judge, as you say that 'you have just settled a case'. Therefore, I raise my hat to you, learned friend.

Former President Clinton is an attorney and has a very substantial grasp of how to interpret and use the law, as it stands in this country, as in asking his interrogator ,as it was at that time, what the word "is" means.
In such casuing pause and redirecting the force of the issues and questioning at hand. This is only one example of evasive tactics and interpretation of the law.
My comment about the case settled was merely to show how long a personal injury claim can endure with our legal system .
The case was of very questionable liabilty built on heresay.... but all a jury needs is an excuse to deliver a plantiffs verdict.
Scandal was a term used or over used by the media in that particular event and I unfortunately ,fall sometimes, into the trendy use of catch phrases. For that I apologize, since I hate faddish text.
I am not a judge, well maybe of character.

 

[FredC]

Very succinct post Micron. My view on the subject is- even if he were guilty, most lawyers would recommend he mount a vigorous defense as to seem pious & beyond reproach. I'm not one of his "acolytes" so the outcome is of little consequence to me. A more methodical & regularly administered testing regimen would solve the whole mess then cycling could have some of the "lustre" returned to it, of days gone by.

This is not the case in question. If indeed he was guilty of an offence, and proved to be so, then LA would not claim in this case, or any other similar cases. A defence 'vigorous' or not, is solely based on actual evidence and Law.
Vigorous, pious, are not only adjectives, but they do not convey a legal situation, which is in itself is the whole object of the exercise.
I really must point out again, that the responsibilities of the IOC and WADA, testing procedures have nothing to do with courts of Law, unless one want's to take the appropiate decisions against their instigations and penalties then the miscreants may do so. Mind you, I haven't seem any so far.
Should be interesting with TH coming up, and Balco in March.

 

[FredC]

Former President Clinton is an attorney and has a very substantial grasp of how to interpret and use the law, as it stands in this country, as in asking his interrogator ,as it was at that time, what the word "is" means.
In such casuing pause and redirecting the force of the issues and questioning at hand. This is only one example of evasive tactics and interpretation of the law.
My comment about the case settled was merely to show how long a personal injury claim can endure with our legal system .
The case was of very questionable liabilty built on heresay.... but all a jury needs is an excuse to deliver a plantiffs verdict.
Scandal was a term used or over used by the media in that particular event and I unfortunately ,fall sometimes, into the trendy use of catch phrases. For that I apologize, since I hate faddish text.
I am not a judge, well maybe of character.

I do not want this thread to disintegrate into other matters, as it involves one of the greatest bike riders of all time. I was a Pro in Europe a long time ago, and believe me these riders are from another planet.
As to Clinton, who cares about is and was, he might have been questioned slightly different. He's still married to Hillary, and his daughter Chelsea went to Oxford.
He will go down better than Bush in History.
How can Gonzo be an assett to America? You're all losing every day.
In complicated cases here in the UK the judge directs the jury, but of course they don't have to comply.
Of course I have no knowledge of this personal injury claim, but I must comment that it has taken a rather flavourless attitude as the Claimant(Plaintiffs) position would, or could have diminished in physical condition, and might not be attributed to the original physical detriment. I do find this most disconcerting. Cases of this order should be dealt with far more quickly, for various reasons that I understand, but have no notion of your funding laws.

 

[limerickman]

This is not the case in question. If indeed he was guilty of an offence, and proved to be so, then LA would not claim in this case, or any other similar cases. A defence 'vigorous' or not, is solely based on actual evidence and Law.
Vigorous, pious, are not only adjectives, but they do not convey a legal situation, which is in itself is the whole object of the exercise.
I really must point out again, that the responsibilities of the IOC and WADA, testing procedures have nothing to do with courts of Law, unless one want's to take the appropiate decisions against their instigations and penalties then the miscreants may do so. Mind you, I haven't seem any so far.
Should be interesting with TH coming up, and Balco in March.

Fred, Cyclingnews is carrying this story, about the Dirty Digger possibly appealing EadyJ's ruling :

Edited by Hedwig Kröner
Sunday Times considers appeal in Armstrong case ruling

By Gerard Knapp

Times Newspapers Limited is considering seeking permission to appeal against the judgment handed down in the British High Court by Mr Justice Eady concerning the libel action brought by six-time Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong against the newspaper.

The legal department of TNL contacted Cyclingnews to clarify an earlier article published on this web site. The Sunday Times' in-house solicitor, Ms Gillian Phillips, stressed that the case was far from over and that the paper still planned to mount a defense in a trial that is slated to commence in October or November this year.

Phillips said the paper had 14 to 21 days to consider its appeal, and while admitting that Justice Eady's latest judgment "concerned" the organisation, she claimed the paper still had an array of legal arguments it could forward in its defence. "In fact, the Judge did not throw out the newspaper's whole defence; he struck out the qualified privilege defence and also a pleaded meaning that the article published by The Sunday Times meant no more that there were some questions needing to be investigated," Phillips said.

"However, the newspaper's defence of justification (truth) remains and the litigation is ongoing. The Sunday Times is considering whether to seek permission to appeal against the Judge's ruling."

Essentially, the paper has to prove that it did not defame the cyclist with publication of the hard-hitting article that cast doubt on Armstrong's achievements.
Complicated

Justice Eady's statement, issued on December 17 last year, is a significant step in the legal process of this complicated libel case. Initiated by Armstrong after the publication of a story in The Sunday Times on June 13, 2004, the article is also an opportunity for the cyclist to name the Irish journalist, David Walsh, author of the controversial book, LA Confidentiel (so far only published in French, written by Walsh with Pierre Ballester).

Walsh did not write The Sunday Times article and in fact Walsh is not an employee of the paper. Rather, he has been a freelance writer for the paper for several years allowing him time to also concentrate on his books. The article was actually written by Sunday Times' journalist, Alan English, also named in Armstrong's action, who quotes Walsh extensively. It's believed that their naming in the action could put both writers in the firing line should the court find in favour of the claimant and any damages be awarded.
Background

Justice Eady's judgment 'lays the table' for arguments that can be advanced by both sides in the planned trial. Significantly, the judgment does reject key arguments pleaded by TNL.

The judge's striking out of the qualified privilege defence is somewhat ironic for The Sunday Times, which advanced this legal argument and lobbied the House of Lords to introduce it into British Law. It aims to provide a legal defence for quality investigative journalism, but in this libel case, Mr Justice Eady ruled it can't be used by the organisation that fought for its introduction.

 

[FredC]

Fred, Cyclingnews is carrying this story, about the Dirty Digger possibly appealing EadyJ's ruling :

Edited by Hedwig Kröner
Sunday Times considers appeal in Armstrong case ruling

By Gerard Knapp

Times Newspapers Limited is considering seeking permission to appeal against the judgment handed down in the British High Court by Mr Justice Eady concerning the libel action brought by six-time Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong against the newspaper.

The legal department of TNL contacted Cyclingnews to clarify an earlier article published on this web site. The Sunday Times' in-house solicitor, Ms Gillian Phillips, stressed that the case was far from over and that the paper still planned to mount a defense in a trial that is slated to commence in October or November this year.

Phillips said the paper had 14 to 21 days to consider its appeal, and while admitting that Justice Eady's latest judgment "concerned" the organisation, she claimed the paper still had an array of legal arguments it could forward in its defence. "In fact, the Judge did not throw out the newspaper's whole defence; he struck out the qualified privilege defence and also a pleaded meaning that the article published by The Sunday Times meant no more that there were some questions needing to be investigated," Phillips said.

"However, the newspaper's defence of justification (truth) remains and the litigation is ongoing. The Sunday Times is considering whether to seek permission to appeal against the Judge's ruling."

Essentially, the paper has to prove that it did not defame the cyclist with publication of the hard-hitting article that cast doubt on Armstrong's achievements.
Complicated

Justice Eady's statement, issued on December 17 last year, is a significant step in the legal process of this complicated libel case. Initiated by Armstrong after the publication of a story in The Sunday Times on June 13, 2004, the article is also an opportunity for the cyclist to name the Irish journalist, David Walsh, author of the controversial book, LA Confidentiel (so far only published in French, written by Walsh with Pierre Ballester).

Walsh did not write The Sunday Times article and in fact Walsh is not an employee of the paper. Rather, he has been a freelance writer for the paper for several years allowing him time to also concentrate on his books. The article was actually written by Sunday Times' journalist, Alan English, also named in Armstrong's action, who quotes Walsh extensively. It's believed that their naming in the action could put both writers in the firing line should the court find in favour of the claimant and any damages be awarded.
Background

Justice Eady's judgment 'lays the table' for arguments that can be advanced by both sides in the planned trial. Significantly, the judgment does reject key arguments pleaded by TNL.

The judge's striking out of the qualified privilege defence is somewhat ironic for The Sunday Times, which advanced this legal argument and lobbied the House of Lords to introduce it into British Law. It aims to provide a legal defence for quality investigative journalism, but in this libel case, Mr Justice Eady ruled it can't be used by the organisation that fought for its introduction.

In your opener, I would refer to Christine Keeler. Well they all say that, don't they?
Strikeouts, can be challenged to be included in the trial proper, but I doubt that any of them will succeed. The reason being that they did not have a prospect in caselaw, or any furtherence of such. There are no limits to re-applications, but the cost, in this case will be against Times newspapers. Eady has already warned of cost-capping, but only as a guideline to both parties.
Be Jasus Lim, Oi could have done a better job of wroiting the ting up.
Now are you having a few punts on it? Oi can't get to gather sometin' in the sack. Oim takin' evens all down the loin. Oive read the lot foive times.
Oil have t'go down to the Toims office t'shake their pants a bit.

 

[limerickman]

In your opener, I would refer to Christine Keeler. Well they all say that, don't they?
Strikeouts, can be challenged to be included in the trial proper, but I doubt that any of them will succeed. The reason being that they did not have a prospect in caselaw, or any furtherence of such. There are no limits to re-applications, but the cost, in this case will be against Times newspapers. Eady has already warned of cost-capping, but only as a guideline to both parties.
Be Jasus Lim, Oi could have done a better job of wroiting the ting up.
Now are you having a few punts on it? Oi can't get to gather sometin' in the sack. Oim takin' evens all down the loin. Oive read the lot foive times.
Oil have t'go down to the Toims office t'shake their pants a bit.

Fred, I'll defer to your inexhaustive legal expertise and pass.
I'm only an oik.
You'd be shooting fish in the proverbail barrel betting with me.

I just thought that you'd like to be aware that the Dirty Digger is making noises about taking a stand in this case.

 

[FredC]

Fred, I'll defer to your inexhaustive legal expertise and pass.
I'm only an oik.
You'd be shooting fish in the proverbail barrel betting with me.

I just thought that you'd like to be aware that the Dirty Digger is making noises about taking a stand in this case.

Yes Lim, that's why I'm doing evens. A y'sure now? a little one perhaps. Oim not Barney Curley y'know.
From what I've read the ones who work at the Times in this case might be down at the jobcentre. That was not a legal team they put together in my opinion, the preparation trawled all the caselaw, and was basically sunk without trace. Believe me they have nothing to go to war with. Y'sure y wunt loik a little one, oil give y' 6/5 then. Go on, a little punt is good for the soul.
Jasus, the other night I stuck a £1000 on to win £90. Didn't bat an eyelid.
Better than the Bankrate.
Now come on punt away you rich Americans, I'm working out a book on Hamilton.