R
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
D
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
>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
B
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 ****. 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.
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 ****. 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.
T
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 ****.
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
>Means nothing to not have tested >positive.
Since some have tested positive, it does "mean something".
>Ask the Spotted ****.
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
D
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.
> [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.
R
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 *** 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-*** 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.
>
> 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 *** 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-*** 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.
C
Curtis L. Russell
Guest
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...
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...
W
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
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
H
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
>
> 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
H
h squared
Guest
Similar threads
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 707
- Replies
- 12
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 290
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 274
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 355
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 301
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 246
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 308