LA Denied In Paris

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by Richard Adams, Jun 21, 2004.



  1. Doug Taylor

    Doug Taylor Guest

    [email protected] (Richard Adams) wrote:

    >http://edition.cnn.com/2004/SPORT/06/21/cycling.armstrong.reut/


    So LA has lost round one.

    Assuming that French Law is similar to most American jurisdictions,
    for LA to have obtained an injunction preventing the publication of
    the book would have been pretty much impossible. Accordingly, his
    lawyers came up the alternative idea of having the Court require
    attaching his denials of the doping claims as an insert in the book.
    Practically speaking, that would have stalled publication or killed
    it, or at least blunted its impact. Prior to the hearing, this idea
    charitably could have been described as "novel." The judge, however,
    apparently that it was more of the "frivolous"variety, and threw it
    out summarily with a fine.

    Still to come is the actual libel lawsuit which has yet to be filed.
    When and if it is filed and tried, it will test who ultimately is
    telling the "truth" on the question whether or not
    LA used performance enhancing drugs, as he denies and his accusers
    allege.

    In favor of LA is the fact he has never tested positive or refused a
    test. Also the distinct possibility that the book authors are just a
    bunch of greedy sleazy tabloid journalists in it for the bucks.

    Against LA is the testimony of former US Postal Team employees, the
    Lemonds, etc. Also the distinct possibility that LA is just another
    among many professional endurance athletes who commonly gobble, drink
    or inject anything and everything possible, legal or not, to maintain
    their competitive edge.

    So we'll see whether LA is hero or scumball druggie, or whether the
    book authors are the Woodward & Bernstein of professional cycling or
    are themselves the scumballs.

    --dt
     
  2. B. Lafferty

    B. Lafferty Guest

    "Doug Taylor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > [email protected] (Richard Adams) wrote:
    >
    > >http://edition.cnn.com/2004/SPORT/06/21/cycling.armstrong.reut/

    >
    > So LA has lost round one.
    >
    > Assuming that French Law is similar to most American jurisdictions,
    > for LA to have obtained an injunction preventing the publication of
    > the book would have been pretty much impossible. Accordingly, his
    > lawyers came up the alternative idea of having the Court require
    > attaching his denials of the doping claims as an insert in the book.
    > Practically speaking, that would have stalled publication or killed
    > it, or at least blunted its impact. Prior to the hearing, this idea
    > charitably could have been described as "novel." The judge, however,
    > apparently that it was more of the "frivolous"variety, and threw it
    > out summarily with a fine.


    In US and, to my knowledge, UK jusriprudence, to obtain an preliminary
    injunction ,one must show the court that the interested party will suffer
    irreperable harm if the injunction is not issued and that the interested
    party is likely to prevail on the merits at trial. Not an easy task.
    >
    > Still to come is the actual libel lawsuit which has yet to be filed.
    > When and if it is filed and tried, it will test who ultimately is
    > telling the "truth" on the question whether or not
    > LA used performance enhancing drugs, as he denies and his accusers
    > allege.


    Truth; what a lovely concept. More likely, it will provide us with a winner
    and loser in the court. It will also provide great entertainment value,
    particularly when Armstrong, Johan and friends are called to testify. I
    can't wait to read Kathy Lemond's testimony on cross.
    >
    > In favor of LA is the fact he has never tested positive or refused a
    > test. Also the distinct possibility that the book authors are just a
    > bunch of greedy sleazy tabloid journalists in it for the bucks.


    Means nothing to not have tested positive. Ask the Spotted Dick. The
    journalistic credentials of Walsh and B are well established. Hacks they
    aren't.

    >
    > Against LA is the testimony of former US Postal Team employees, the
    > Lemonds, etc. Also the distinct possibility that LA is just another
    > among many professional endurance athletes who commonly gobble, drink
    > or inject anything and everything possible, legal or not, to maintain
    > their competitive edge.


    You really think that's a possibility???!!!

    >
    > So we'll see whether LA is hero or scumball druggie, or whether the
    > book authors are the Woodward & Bernstein of professional cycling or
    > are themselves the scumballs.


    Maybe. I predict that Armstrong drops the matter by the end of the year if
    it hasn't already been dismissed.
     
  3. Tom Paterson

    Tom Paterson Guest

    >From: "B. Lafferty"

    >Means nothing to not have tested >positive.


    Since some have tested positive, it does "mean something".

    >Ask the Spotted Dick.


    Curious as to how many times Virenque has been tested compared to LA, and what
    the timing was.

    Not to spoil your party, but note that for all the "S-D" stuff, Virenque is
    still a hero to the French fans-- or those fans in Luxembourg near the Prologue
    start house in '02, which of course would mean not just "the French". Loudest
    applause on introduction, by far, except for Armstrong, who was about an 8.5 if
    Mr. Virenque was a 10, by my unmetered reckoning.

    >The
    >journalistic credentials of Walsh and B are well established. Hacks they
    >aren't.


    How long did they hold this story in order to cause the most damage to LA and
    the Tour? Hack-y, hack-y, hack-y. IMHO, of course. "Sensationalist" if you like
    that term better. --TP
     
  4. David Off

    David Off Guest

    Doug Taylor wrote:

    > [email protected] (Richard Adams) wrote:
    >
    >
    >>http://edition.cnn.com/2004/SPORT/06/21/cycling.armstrong.reut/

    >
    >
    > So LA has lost round one.
    >
    > Prior to the hearing, this idea
    > charitably could have been described as "novel."


    Not that novel, recently Bertrand Cantat (a French singer) tried to stop
    publication of a book (Ma Fille, Marie) which describes him as an
    murderer. The tribnal de grand instance in Paris also through this claim
    out.


    > The judge, however,
    > apparently that it was more of the "frivolous"variety, and threw it
    > out summarily with a fine.


    See my other post. Basically he wanted an insert in the book to say he
    was suing the authors for defamation but as the Judge observed, his
    lawyer had failed to file a defamation suit before the French courts.
     
  5. Robert Chung

    Robert Chung Guest

    David Off wrote:
    >
    > See my other post. Basically he wanted an insert in the book to say he
    > was suing the authors for defamation but as the Judge observed, his
    > lawyer had failed to file a defamation suit before the French courts.


    So a couple of years ago my wife was asked by a French academic journal to
    review a just-published (French) book in her field of expertise. She
    thought parts of the book were really quite well-written, especially the
    part that was copied word-for-word from an article she'd published a few
    years before. Here's the kicker: the author is a professor with the
    (alleged) reputation for appropriating his students' work as his own. In
    this case he took credit for writing something that he (allegedly) took
    from his student, not knowing that his student (allegedly) took it from an
    article written by my (alleged) wife.

    The book was already published and in the bookstores.

    I wanted my wife to do two things:

    1. Finish writing the book review she'd been asked to do.
    2. Get an insert put into all unsold copies of the book. You know those
    lines that appear near the front matter of books that say something like,
    "The material appearing on page xxx of this book is reprinted with the
    permission of the publisher?" I wanted them to glue in a little notice
    saying "the material appearing on pages xx-xxx of this book is reprinted
    without the permission of the author." It turns out this wasn't possible:
    my wife doesn't hold the copyright to her article. The journal where she
    published it does. She was advised that if she had filed a suit to get the
    insert put into the books, there was a good chance that her case would be
    tossed.

    I guess there was third thing I wanted my wife to do:

    3. String this guy up by the balls. A side effect of the move toward
    digital piano? It's much harder to find piano wire nowadays.
     
  6. On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 08:48:40 +0200, "Robert Chung" <[email protected]cy.net>
    wrote:

    >In
    >this case he took credit for writing something that he (allegedly) took
    >from his student, not knowing that his student (allegedly) took it from an
    >article written by my (alleged) wife.


    I think your last [alleged] is in the wrong place. I could be wrong,
    but if it IS in the right place, checking your marriage certificate
    should clear it up.

    Curtis L. Russell
    Odenton, MD (USA)
    Just someone on two wheels...
     
  7. warren

    warren Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, Curtis L.
    Russell <[email protected]> wrote:

    > On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 08:48:40 +0200, "Robert Chung" <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >In
    > >this case he took credit for writing something that he (allegedly) took
    > >from his student, not knowing that his student (allegedly) took it from an
    > >article written by my (alleged) wife.

    >
    > I think your last [alleged] is in the wrong place. I could be wrong,
    > but if it IS in the right place, checking your marriage certificate
    > should clear it up.


    Or maybe there is some truth in the Times article about l'affaire Chung.

    -WG
     
  8. h squared

    h squared Guest

    "Curtis L. Russell" wrote:
    >
    > On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 08:48:40 +0200, "Robert Chung" <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >In
    > >this case he took credit for writing something that he (allegedly) took
    > >from his student, not knowing that his student (allegedly) took it from an
    > >article written by my (alleged) wife.

    >
    > I think your last [alleged] is in the wrong place. I could be wrong,
    > but if it IS in the right place, checking your marriage certificate
    > should clear it up.
    >
    > Curtis L. Russell
    > Odenton, MD (USA)
    > Just someone on two wheels...


    it could be that by writing "(alleged) wife" he intended to clarify his
    previous to uses of the word.
    h
     
  9. h squared

    h squared Guest

    h squared wrote:

    > to uses


    two uses, not to uses.
    h
     
Loading...
Loading...