The Fun Is About To Begin

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by B. Lafferty, Sep 12, 2004.

  1. B. Lafferty

    B. Lafferty Guest

    From CyclingNews:

    Armstrong suing for ?2 million
    Two and a half months after the the publication of the book L.A.
    Confidentiel by British journalist David Walsh and Pierre Ballester - which
    he had tried to prevent without success - Lance Armstrong has now set out to
    sue the publisher Martinière, the authors, his ex-soigneur Emma O'Reilly as
    well as French magazine L'Express for printing excerpts.

    According to a statement issued by Michel Zaoui, the magazine's attorney,
    the defamation of character case involves ?2 million and a preliminary court
    date has been set for December 1, 2004. A second charge of complicity is
    also being made against Emma O'Reilly and with a hearing scheduled for
    December 9. M. Zaoui declared he would be asking for the two cases to be
    treated at the same hearing, while not expecting a final ruling before 2006.

    Armstrong's lawyers told AFP, "The pre-publication of excerpts in L'Express,
    together with the book's publication on the next day, were merely a
    commercial event destined to make enormous profits to the detriment of Lance
    Armstrong."

    In France the book was indeed much talked about and a best-seller, although
    it did not offer any conclusive proof that Armstrong had ever used
    performance-enhancing drugs.


    --
    Peloton Pigs--Flying Since 1991
     
    Tags:


  2. "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> writes:

    > From CyclingNews:
    >
    > Armstrong suing for ?2 million
    > Two and a half months after the the publication of the book L.A.
    > Confidentiel by British journalist David Walsh and Pierre Ballester - which
    > he had tried to prevent without success - Lance Armstrong has now set out to
    > sue the publisher Martinière, the authors, his ex-soigneur Emma O'Reilly as
    > well as French magazine L'Express for printing excerpts.
    >
    > According to a statement issued by Michel Zaoui, the magazine's attorney,
    > the defamation of character case involves ?2 million and a preliminary court
    > date has been set for December 1, 2004. A second charge of complicity is
    > also being made against Emma O'Reilly and with a hearing scheduled for
    > December 9. M. Zaoui declared he would be asking for the two cases to be
    > treated at the same hearing, while not expecting a final ruling before 2006.
    >
    > Armstrong's lawyers told AFP, "The pre-publication of excerpts in L'Express,
    > together with the book's publication on the next day, were merely a
    > commercial event destined to make enormous profits to the detriment of Lance
    > Armstrong."
    >
    > In France the book was indeed much talked about and a best-seller, although
    > it did not offer any conclusive proof that Armstrong had ever used
    > performance-enhancing drugs.
    >


    Ha. But now he gotta prove a negative if he wants injunction, damages,
    punitive damages, whatever, right?

    --
    le Vent a Dos, Davey Crockett
    Six Day Site: http://sixday.741.com/
     
  3. B. Lafferty

    B. Lafferty Guest

    <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]rs.com...
    > "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> writes:
    >
    >> From CyclingNews:
    >>
    >> Armstrong suing for ?2 million
    >> Two and a half months after the the publication of the book L.A.
    >> Confidentiel by British journalist David Walsh and Pierre Ballester -
    >> which
    >> he had tried to prevent without success - Lance Armstrong has now set out
    >> to
    >> sue the publisher Martinière, the authors, his ex-soigneur Emma O'Reilly
    >> as
    >> well as French magazine L'Express for printing excerpts.
    >>
    >> According to a statement issued by Michel Zaoui, the magazine's attorney,
    >> the defamation of character case involves ?2 million and a preliminary
    >> court
    >> date has been set for December 1, 2004. A second charge of complicity is
    >> also being made against Emma O'Reilly and with a hearing scheduled for
    >> December 9. M. Zaoui declared he would be asking for the two cases to be
    >> treated at the same hearing, while not expecting a final ruling before
    >> 2006.
    >>
    >> Armstrong's lawyers told AFP, "The pre-publication of excerpts in
    >> L'Express,
    >> together with the book's publication on the next day, were merely a
    >> commercial event destined to make enormous profits to the detriment of
    >> Lance
    >> Armstrong."
    >>
    >> In France the book was indeed much talked about and a best-seller,
    >> although
    >> it did not offer any conclusive proof that Armstrong had ever used
    >> performance-enhancing drugs.
    >>

    >
    > Ha. But now he gotta prove a negative if he wants injunction, damages,
    > punitive damages, whatever, right?
    >
    > --
    > le Vent a Dos, Davey Crockett
    > Six Day Site: http://sixday.741.com/


    My understanding is that in France the ones charged have the burden of
    proving the truth of their statements. I'm wondering what the fallout of
    suing Emma might be. Will it bring more people forward with their own
    statements about Armstrong? Also, Emma's diary, a contemporaneously kept
    document, should make very interesting reading at trial.
     
  4. psycholist

    psycholist Guest

    "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > From CyclingNews:
    >
    > Armstrong suing for ?2 million
    > Two and a half months after the the publication of the book L.A.
    > Confidentiel by British journalist David Walsh and Pierre Ballester -

    which
    > he had tried to prevent without success - Lance Armstrong has now set out

    to
    > sue the publisher Martinière, the authors, his ex-soigneur Emma O'Reilly

    as
    > well as French magazine L'Express for printing excerpts.
    >
    > According to a statement issued by Michel Zaoui, the magazine's attorney,
    > the defamation of character case involves ?2 million and a preliminary

    court
    > date has been set for December 1, 2004. A second charge of complicity is
    > also being made against Emma O'Reilly and with a hearing scheduled for
    > December 9. M. Zaoui declared he would be asking for the two cases to be
    > treated at the same hearing, while not expecting a final ruling before

    2006.
    >
    > Armstrong's lawyers told AFP, "The pre-publication of excerpts in

    L'Express,
    > together with the book's publication on the next day, were merely a
    > commercial event destined to make enormous profits to the detriment of

    Lance
    > Armstrong."
    >
    > In France the book was indeed much talked about and a best-seller,

    although
    > it did not offer any conclusive proof that Armstrong had ever used
    > performance-enhancing drugs.
    >
    >
    > --
    > Peloton Pigs--Flying Since 1991
    >
    >


    This is really bad news in that it means we have to endure more of your
    unsubstantiated "Lance is a doper" crap. Did you read the last paragraph of
    what you posted? The part about how the book "did not offer any conclusive
    proof that Armstrong had ever used
    performance-enhancing drugs." And if Lance were guilty, what's in it for
    him to do this? Seems he'd be running a far greater risk of being exposed
    than of being wrongfully exonerated.

    Bob C.
     
  5. B. Lafferty

    B. Lafferty Guest

    "psycholist" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >> From CyclingNews:
    >>
    >> Armstrong suing for ?2 million
    >> Two and a half months after the the publication of the book L.A.
    >> Confidentiel by British journalist David Walsh and Pierre Ballester -

    > which
    >> he had tried to prevent without success - Lance Armstrong has now set out

    > to
    >> sue the publisher Martinière, the authors, his ex-soigneur Emma O'Reilly

    > as
    >> well as French magazine L'Express for printing excerpts.
    >>
    >> According to a statement issued by Michel Zaoui, the magazine's attorney,
    >> the defamation of character case involves ?2 million and a preliminary

    > court
    >> date has been set for December 1, 2004. A second charge of complicity is
    >> also being made against Emma O'Reilly and with a hearing scheduled for
    >> December 9. M. Zaoui declared he would be asking for the two cases to be
    >> treated at the same hearing, while not expecting a final ruling before

    > 2006.
    >>
    >> Armstrong's lawyers told AFP, "The pre-publication of excerpts in

    > L'Express,
    >> together with the book's publication on the next day, were merely a
    >> commercial event destined to make enormous profits to the detriment of

    > Lance
    >> Armstrong."
    >>
    >> In France the book was indeed much talked about and a best-seller,

    > although
    >> it did not offer any conclusive proof that Armstrong had ever used
    >> performance-enhancing drugs.
    >>
    >>
    >> --
    >> Peloton Pigs--Flying Since 1991
    >>
    >>

    >
    > This is really bad news in that it means we have to endure more of your
    > unsubstantiated "Lance is a doper" crap. Did you read the last paragraph
    > of
    > what you posted? The part about how the book "did not offer any
    > conclusive
    > proof that Armstrong had ever used performance-enhancing drugs."


    Walsh has stated that they set out the other side of the Lance story in 388
    pages and leave it to the reader to draw what conclusions they may. I've
    read the book. In my opinion, the presumption is that Postal has had a
    doping program since 1997 and that it is likely that Armstrong was using
    drugs before the onset of his cancer. (NOTE--I have not drawn at conclusion)
    Those presumptions are rebuttable and might well be rebutted by Armstrong
    answering some tough questions which he is not about to do, except perhaps,
    in court with his legal action. I'm just going to sit back and see what
    testimony and other evidence developes over the course of his legal action.

    > And if Lance were guilty, what's in it for
    > him to do this? Seems he'd be running a far greater risk of being exposed
    > than of being wrongfully exonerated.


    Good questions. I suggest you pose them to Armstrong via his web site and
    see what kind of answer you get.
    http://www.lancearmstrong.com/

    >
    > Bob C.
    >
    >
     
  6. Kyle Legate

    Kyle Legate Guest

    psycholist wrote:
    >
    > This is really bad news in that it means we have to endure more of
    > your unsubstantiated "Lance is a doper" crap. Did you read the last
    > paragraph of what you posted? The part about how the book "did not
    > offer any conclusive proof that Armstrong had ever used
    > performance-enhancing drugs." And if Lance were guilty, what's in
    > it for him to do this? Seems he'd be running a far greater risk of
    > being exposed than of being wrongfully exonerated.
    >

    Exonerated of what? The book had no proof.
     
  7. B. Lafferty

    B. Lafferty Guest

    "Kyle Legate" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > psycholist wrote:
    >>
    >> This is really bad news in that it means we have to endure more of
    >> your unsubstantiated "Lance is a doper" crap. Did you read the last
    >> paragraph of what you posted? The part about how the book "did not
    >> offer any conclusive proof that Armstrong had ever used
    >> performance-enhancing drugs." And if Lance were guilty, what's in
    >> it for him to do this? Seems he'd be running a far greater risk of
    >> being exposed than of being wrongfully exonerated.
    >>

    > Exonerated of what? The book had no proof.


    You've read the book then?
     
  8. Kyle Legate

    Kyle Legate Guest

    B. Lafferty wrote:
    > "Kyle Legate" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >> psycholist wrote:
    >>>
    >>> This is really bad news in that it means we have to endure more of
    >>> your unsubstantiated "Lance is a doper" crap. Did you read the last
    >>> paragraph of what you posted? The part about how the book "did not
    >>> offer any conclusive proof that Armstrong had ever used
    >>> performance-enhancing drugs." And if Lance were guilty, what's in
    >>> it for him to do this? Seems he'd be running a far greater risk of
    >>> being exposed than of being wrongfully exonerated.
    >>>

    >> Exonerated of what? The book had no proof.

    >
    > You've read the book then?
    >

    I don't have to. I read your posts.
     
  9. B. Lafferty

    B. Lafferty Guest

    "Kyle Legate" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > B. Lafferty wrote:
    >> "Kyle Legate" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected]
    >>> psycholist wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> This is really bad news in that it means we have to endure more of
    >>>> your unsubstantiated "Lance is a doper" crap. Did you read the last
    >>>> paragraph of what you posted? The part about how the book "did not
    >>>> offer any conclusive proof that Armstrong had ever used
    >>>> performance-enhancing drugs." And if Lance were guilty, what's in
    >>>> it for him to do this? Seems he'd be running a far greater risk of
    >>>> being exposed than of being wrongfully exonerated.
    >>>>
    >>> Exonerated of what? The book had no proof.

    >>
    >> You've read the book then?
    >>

    > I don't have to. I read your posts.


    Sorry, Kyle. Until you read the book, you're just talking out of your ass.
     
  10. RonSonic

    RonSonic Guest

    On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 10:50:48 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

    >"B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> writes:
    >
    >> From CyclingNews:
    >>
    >> Armstrong suing for ?2 million
    >> Two and a half months after the the publication of the book L.A.
    >> Confidentiel by British journalist David Walsh and Pierre Ballester - which
    >> he had tried to prevent without success - Lance Armstrong has now set out to
    >> sue the publisher Martinière, the authors, his ex-soigneur Emma O'Reilly as
    >> well as French magazine L'Express for printing excerpts.
    >>
    >> According to a statement issued by Michel Zaoui, the magazine's attorney,
    >> the defamation of character case involves ?2 million and a preliminary court
    >> date has been set for December 1, 2004. A second charge of complicity is
    >> also being made against Emma O'Reilly and with a hearing scheduled for
    >> December 9. M. Zaoui declared he would be asking for the two cases to be
    >> treated at the same hearing, while not expecting a final ruling before 2006.
    >>
    >> Armstrong's lawyers told AFP, "The pre-publication of excerpts in L'Express,
    >> together with the book's publication on the next day, were merely a
    >> commercial event destined to make enormous profits to the detriment of Lance
    >> Armstrong."
    >>
    >> In France the book was indeed much talked about and a best-seller, although
    >> it did not offer any conclusive proof that Armstrong had ever used
    >> performance-enhancing drugs.
    >>

    >
    >Ha. But now he gotta prove a negative if he wants injunction, damages,
    >punitive damages, whatever, right?


    Not exactly. He doesn't have to prove the negative what he gets to show is that
    the events described did not happen _as_claimed_. Much easier to do. Of course
    this action seems to be mostly overseas and I've got no idea how libel law works
    there....

    Ron
     
  11. Bob Schwartz

    Bob Schwartz Guest

    B. Lafferty <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>> Exonerated of what? The book had no proof.
    >>>
    >>> You've read the book then?
    >>>

    >> I don't have to. I read your posts.


    > Sorry, Kyle. Until you read the book, you're just talking out of your ass.


    When is it being translated into English from the original Horseshit?

    Bob Schwartz
    [email protected]

    Brian, you're a douche. Of course, if I were more sophisticated like you
    I would call you a douche in French, right?
     
  12. Bob Schwartz wrote:

    > Brian, you're a douche. Of course, if I were more sophisticated like you
    > I would call you a douche in French, right?


    Touche.
     
  13. Kyle Legate

    Kyle Legate Guest

    B. Lafferty wrote:
    > "Kyle Legate" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >> B. Lafferty wrote:
    >>> "Kyle Legate" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>> news:[email protected]
    >>>> psycholist wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> This is really bad news in that it means we have to endure more of
    >>>>> your unsubstantiated "Lance is a doper" crap. Did you read the
    >>>>> last paragraph of what you posted? The part about how the book
    >>>>> "did not offer any conclusive proof that Armstrong had ever used
    >>>>> performance-enhancing drugs." And if Lance were guilty, what's
    >>>>> in it for him to do this? Seems he'd be running a far greater risk
    >>>>> of being exposed than of being wrongfully exonerated.
    >>>>>
    >>>> Exonerated of what? The book had no proof.
    >>>
    >>> You've read the book then?
    >>>

    >> I don't have to. I read your posts.

    >
    > Sorry, Kyle. Until you read the book, you're just talking out of
    > your ass.

    I'm trying, but I'll never be as good as you.
     
  14. derby

    derby New Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    Messages:
    88
    Likes Received:
    0
    The ability to speak French does not equal sophistication. However, the ability to speak any language with intelligence may. :cool:
     
  15. B. Lafferty

    B. Lafferty Guest

    "derby" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > Bob Schwartz Wrote:
    >> Brian, you're a douche. Of course, if I were more sophisticated like
    >> you
    >> I would call you a douche in French, right?

    >
    > The ability to speak French does not equal sophistication. However,
    > the ability to speak any language with intelligence may. :cool:
    >
    >
    > --
    > derby
    >


    Of course, if it weren't for Armstrong's threatened legal action in the UK,
    the book would be out for all to read in English. Hopefully, it will
    eventually be published that way so that more people can read it.
     
  16. Jack Hollis

    Jack Hollis Guest

    On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 22:01:39 GMT, RonSonic <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >Of course
    >this action seems to be mostly overseas and I've got no idea how libel law works
    >there....



    In the US, this would be a fruitless venture, but perhaps it will work
    in France.
     
  17. Tom Paterson

    Tom Paterson Guest

    >From: "B. Lafferty"

    ('scuse lacking attribs, flow is clear):

    >Seems he'd [Armstrong] be running a far greater risk of
    >>>>> being exposed than of being wrongfully exonerated.
    >>>>>
    >>>> Exonerated of what? The book had no proof.
    >>>
    >>> You've read the book then?
    >>>

    >> I don't have to. I read your posts.

    >
    >Sorry, Kyle. Until you read the book, you're just talking out of your ass.


    Walsh most carefully said in his release publicity "We don't prove anything
    here" so no, one did not have to read the book, with Walsh trying to cover his
    ass "in front".

    Nice try (not), trying to pump sales, Brian.

    Lance didn't roll over for Walsh, who has "convicted" LA of riding faster than
    others, and therefore being a doper. He has the same "problem" with the TdF for
    the same reason, and timed his LA Confidential release to do the most harm
    possible to both.

    Loved your earlier comment "I'm just going to sit back and see what testimony
    and other evidence developes [oops] over the course of his legal action".

    Pretty please? I don't think you can do it. Of course, LA's racing season is
    over, that will help.

    Earlier in thread, BL posted:

    <In my opinion, the presumption [Walsh book LA Confidential] is that Postal has
    had a
    doping program since 1997 and that it is likely that Armstrong was using
    drugs before the onset of his cancer. (NOTE--I have not drawn at conclusion) >

    Presumption of guilt, non-analytical positives, network of spies. Proud work.
    --TP
     
  18. B. Lafferty

    B. Lafferty Guest

    "Tom Paterson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > <In my opinion, the presumption [Walsh book LA Confidential] is that
    > Postal has
    > had a
    > doping program since 1997 and that it is likely that Armstrong was using
    > drugs before the onset of his cancer. (NOTE--I have not drawn at
    > conclusion) >
    >
    > Presumption of guilt, non-analytical positives, network of spies. Proud
    > work.
    > --TP
    >


    I take it that you still haven't read the book. BTW, do you understand what
    a prima facie case is? That's what, IMO, Walsh and Ballester have made in
    their book. Get a copy and see what you think. Or don't. Whatever.
     
  19. Bob Schwartz

    Bob Schwartz Guest

    B. Lafferty <[email protected]> wrote:
    > I take it that you still haven't read the book. BTW, do you understand what
    > a prima facie case is?


    There you go with that French shit again.

    I'll summarize the evidence. Emma goes to Spain to pick up some pills. You
    ought to be able to positively ID them by the shape, color, and markings.
    But she doesn't note any of that, she just hands them to Lance and has no
    clue what they are. It's up to your imagination.

    Horseshit.

    From: http://www.iht.com/articles/524790.html

    "In July 1999, before the perfunctory medical examination that precedes
    each Tour de France, Armstrong asked her for makeup to cover bruises on
    his arm caused by injections. The authors say that the many legal
    injections of vitamins, iron and recuperative agents that riders receive
    are always administered in the buttocks; the upper arms, they contend,
    are better suited for such illegal substances as EPO, human growth
    hormone and steroids."

    Horseshit.

    There's other stuff too, It all may be true. But none of it is verified
    in any way other than Emma's word.

    Horseshit.

    It's all about the $$$.

    Bob Schwartz
    [email protected]
     
  20. Tom Paterson

    Tom Paterson Guest

    >From: "B. Lafferty"

    >I take it that you still haven't read the book.


    The problem is buying it to read it. As you can tell, I'm not much on innuendo,
    "non-analytical positives" (there is no such thing), spy rings, jailhouse
    finks, all of that. I don't share your or Walsh's personal dislike for LA,
    either, so I'm not hot to hang him.

    >BTW, do you understand what
    >a prima facie case is?


    Even if I didn't I could look it up real quick. You remember my Webster's,
    right?

    > That's [prima facie] what, IMO, Walsh and Ballester have made in
    >their book.


    "Armstrong went faster"? Emma was mule for unknown pills? A doc got fired
    before LA was even around?

    >Get a copy and see what you think. Or >don't. Whatever.


    To be read only with adequate ventilation.
    --TP
     
Loading...
Loading...