Originally Posted by red_flanders
The thing to do when your statements have been clearly shown to be factually incorrect is to admit it and move on. Please do not continue to pile more misinformation on the heap attempt to confuse the issue.
The topic is Ferrari. Thanks.
The point at issue is whether Ferrari can bring an action against USADA - which he claims he is considering - and that is a fact.
The statement I made on Reynolds was incorrect but only on a point of detail - irrelevant to the thread.
I cited the reynolds case as proven example I knew that you can win vindication in a sport case in a US court on the basis of evidence despite sport having declared you guilty. Which he did, in a court in Ohio. So it is true. And also heras in spain. The point I was trying to make was that Reynolds won the case on whether he had been defamed, despite having lost in sport hearings and been sanctioned by sport.
The fact that Reynolds was later overturned on appeal on jurisdictional grounds not veracity of argument is largely irrelevant to this. USADA are in the US. They cannot use the IAAF "we are not in the US argument" used in the Reynolds case.
I knew he had never got a penny which is why I am critical of UCI, IAAF, FIFA etc hiding in jurisdictions to avoid litigation. Also out of interest, in the aftermath of that case it was widely recognised that it was far easier for a non US claimant to take action against a US corporation, that it is the reverse as the Reynolds case , and is why the Reynolds case itself was considered in subsequent attempts to redraft the "Hague convention on international civil enforcement." So it was clearly considered a miscarriage of justice, when used as an argument to change international conventions.
Back to the issue at hand. Ferrari says he is "not guilty of involvement in doping" and is considering action against USADA
That should be of interest to the clinic.
I doubt he will certainly until the Italian investigations are over,