The Greatest



Status
Not open for further replies.
roadhouse said:
explain in detail, please, how it would be in his favor from all sides while i go for a short run and thank gawd i more than likely will not be having to sell my bike seeing as how i just recieved a job offer with an interview to set it in stone this late afternoon. hallefreakinluya!!

1) Clear his reputation

2) Get loads of money

No brainer to me.
 
1. his reputation IS clear.

2. he has and has had tons of money prior to any of this and is only gaining millions more with every breath he takes.
 
roadhouse said:
1. his reputation IS clear.

2. he has and has had tons of money prior to any of this and is only gaining millions more with every breath he takes.

Maybe in 'Texas' but over here in Europe we (for the most part) know 'Big Lance' (a very phallic description - displacement perhaps?) is a wrong'un
 
roadhouse said:
explain in detail, please, how it would be in his favor from all sides

Obviously you are not familiar with British jurisprudence concerning the law of defamation and slander.

Cases of slander and defamation are heard in the British Civil Courts.

In British law, it is a given that a plaintiff (person defamed) is entitled to retain ones good name and standing in society.
It is therfore the case that when a plaintiff sues in a case alleging defamation/slander, the law regards the plaintiff as coming to law "with clean hands".
In other words, the plaintiff has an impeccable, untainted reputation.

It is therefore a prerequisite that the defendant in such cases must establish, in a British court of law, the basis for making the allegations about the plaintiff.
The onus is on the defendant to make their case to the judge - if the defendant in the cases choses to defend against the action.

The weight of evidence for a defendant establishing a case is particularly high because, under the (unwritten) British constitution, all plaintiffs are deemed to have retained "their good name and good reputation".
To establish the veracity of an allegation, the defendant would have to show in detail the basis for the allegation.
The plaintiff on the other hand would not be required to present any evidence in court, if the plaintiff so chooses.
The plaintiff simply has to sue suggesting that he/she has been defamed/slandered.


In practical terms, if I posted an allegation against Adolf ****** and if he decided to defend that action, I would have to establish that the allegation made was truthful and factual.
If I could not prove the allegation, the court would find in Hitlers favour and I would be found to have defamed and slandered him.

Restitution of the persons reputation is normally attributed to the size of damages imposed on the plaintiff.

Therefore in monetary terms suing would be advantageous.
Restoration of ones reputation on winning the case would also be satisfied.
In many cases, costs are awarded to the winning side in an action and that the party losing the case is liable to pay for the costs of both sides in the case.
 
roadhouse said:
1. his reputation IS clear.

2. he has and has had tons of money prior to any of this and is only gaining millions more with every breath he takes.

His reputation is not clear.
That is the point.

If his reputation was clear, he would have used the law which is in his favour to sue and to win major damages and to invalidate allegations made in print concerning his reputation.
 
gtm said:
Maybe in 'Texas' but over here in Europe we (for the most part) know 'Big Lance' (a very phallic description - displacement perhaps?) is a wrong'un


Texas is twice the size of Europe so maybe that's it. :D
You European people are just not wanting to see that an American loves the sport of cycling so much so that he works and works his ass off to dominate it every where he goes let alone on your own soil each and every time and if not for The Great American then 'your' beloved sport would not be as fallible, right? You are creating your own downward spiral with all of this.
 
limerickman said:
His reputation is not clear.
That is the point.

If his reputation was clear, he would have used the law which is in his favour to sue and to win major damages and to invalidate allegations made in print concerning his reputation.


The hell is reputation isn't clear. Not One Guilty Doping Charge, pretty clear to me. If it wasn't clear then he wouldn't be allowed to race, right? Pretty clear to me. If it wasn't clean it'd be all over the worldwide news that he was found guilty, right? Pretty clear to me. You all just don't want to see it. He's over it and is currently out racing. Why you might ask yourself? Because it's pretty damned clear, that's why.
 
Look, not to put down the US or 'Big Lance', but I only wish that cycling was as big in the US as it is in Europe and other countries. Just like futbol (or soccer).
 
roadhouse said:
Texas is twice the size of Europe so maybe that's it. :D
You European people are just not wanting to see that an American loves the sport of cycling so much so that he works and works his ass off to dominate it every where he goes let alone on your own soil each and every time and if not for The Great American then 'your' beloved sport would not be as fallible, right? You are creating your own downward spiral with all of this.


Heard of Greg Lemond? Andy Hampston perhaps? Genuine American cycling stars who achieved great things. I was a big fan of Le Mond in the 80's & thoroughly enjoyed seeing him debag the Badger. Your boy 'Big Lance' isn't fit to lick their boots.

Bottom line is it's nothing to do with 'Big Lance' being an American - it's because he's an egotistical doper who has taken far more out of his sport that he's put in.
 
gtm said:
Heard of Greg Lemond? Andy Hampston perhaps? Genuine American cycling stars who achieved great things. I was a big fan of Le Mond in the 80's & thoroughly enjoyed seeing him debag the Badger. Your boy 'Big Lance' isn't fit to lick their boots.

Bottom line is it's nothing to do with 'Big Lance' being an American - it's because he's an egotistical doper who has taken far more out of his sport that he's put in.


spoken like a true hate breeding slanted European if you ask me.
 
roadhouse said:
The hell is reputation isn't clear. Not One Guilty Doping Charge, pretty clear to me. If it wasn't clear then he wouldn't be allowed to race, right? Pretty clear to me. If it wasn't clean it'd be all over the worldwide news that he was found guilty, right? Pretty clear to me. You all just don't want to see it. He's over it and is currently out racing. Why you might ask yourself? Because it's pretty damned clear, that's why.

An innocent person would sue.

In fact a guilty person, sued for defamation under British law and won (see Maxwell, for example)!

Bottom line is that Armstrong would not sue for defamation in the country where the entire legal process would be in his favour.

As I said earlier, Armstrong may be a cheat but he is not stupid.
Even he wouldn't be stupid enough to try to bluff in a British court.

British judges do not take too kindly to perjury.
 
limerickman said:
An innocent person would sue.

In fact a guilty person, sued for defamation under British law and won (see Maxwell, for example)!

Bottom line is that Armstrong would not sue for defamation in the country where the entire legal process would be in his favour.

As I said earlier, Armstrong may be a cheat but he is not stupid.
Even he wouldn't be stupid enough to try to bluff in a British court.

British judges do not take too kindly to perjury.


it sounds to me like the common Brit is the one who expects for an innocent man to sue and if he doesn't then he's apparently not innocent to begin with, not the innocent man himself who is neither British and could care less what they think. They guy is out riding and that is that.

ps.- my mother is British. annoying as hell with the sharp tongue and her hot tea but i love the old wench just the same.. :)
 
roadhouse said:
spoken like a true hate breeding slanted European if you ask me.

I should have know, I really should - there is as much point in throwing pebbles at the Rock of Gibraltar as there is trying to have a logical discussion with a 'Big Lance' fan.
 
gtm said:
I should have know, I really should - there is as much point in throwing pebbles at the Rock of Gibraltar as there is trying to have a logical discussion with a 'Big Lance' fan.


doOd, it wouldn't have mattered if it was Lance who i was the fan of but rather the fact of the matter is that you said he is "an egotistical doper who has taken more from the sport than he has put in". brilliant, just brilliant. you wanna argue that statement because nows your chance. how has he taken anything? and how much has he taken? and what has he not put back in? how exactly has he not put back anything into the sport itself? all things cycling are Big Lance Armstrong and it's exploded because of him. and what makes him egotistical? the fact that no European can take him on a bike i'm sure, right? or is it the fact that he gets the mic because no European is important enough because they can't take him?
 
roadhouse said:
it sounds to me like the common Brit is the one who expects for an innocent man to sue and if he doesn't then he's apparently not innocent to begin with, not the innocent man himself who is neither British and could care less what they think. They guy is out riding and that is that.

ps.- my mother is British. annoying as hell with the sharp tongue and her hot tea but i love the old wench just the same.. :)

Not quite - for any wealthy man who believes his reputation has been impugned the High Court in London is the place to go (irespective of whether he cares what the 'Brits' think) Why? The Judges will accept jurisdiction in almost every case & the law as it stands is very much in the plantiffs favour.

Funnily enough 'Big Lance' had a go a few years ago.

Armstrong v Times Newspapers Ltd & Ors [2005] EWCA Civ 1007 (29 July 2005)

If you can be bothered to read through that lot you'll see LA attempted to sue David Walsh & The Times & that what you reading is a Judgement relating to what you in the US call a 'pre trial motion' (we call it a pre trial application'). As it happens 'Big Lance' won his technical point that day but the meat of the case was left to be dealt at a future trial. However, soon after the case was mysteriously settled before it ever got to trial. My guess is what came out at the hearing put the 'frighteners' on 'Big Lance' that he decided to shut the whole thing down asap.
 
it's not gonna be that easy, i want to know what he took from the sport of cycling and how he took it and how he didn't put back anything into it. i could care less for the courts if you couldn't tell by now.
 
you said it and for all the world to see and believe you me, a lot of pros are reading what you say. Triathletes and the likes who might just be up against Big Lance come Kona too so make it good.
 
that's the third two mile interval on foot i've made inbetween posting today only to come back to the negligent homicide of an afterthought. whenever you care to clarify exactly how it is Big Lance has taken from this sport ( why he would do that beats me) and how he hasn't put back anything into it, the floor is all yours but i have a feeling i'll just end up mopping it with you once again...:D

in other words, i'm still waiting. :confused:

but if you care to not naw off your reamaining foot, i understand that too. :D

i'm outta here. :cool:
 
roadhouse said:
the fact that no European can take him on a bike i'm sure, right? or is it the fact that he gets the mic because no European is important enough because they can't take him?

Can someone remind me again... Where is Contador from exactly ? Spain ?? And where is Spain exactly ??? Europe ??

I don't hate on LA, not at all, more power to him. But you can't say no European can take him, because he did. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news on 'Big Lance'...

Let me ask everyone another question... If Lance was from Europe, or any country other than US, whould he be as popular as he is ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.