Paula Radcliffe to run london marathon in April

[zebedee]

Linford Christie does not get a free pass, from the media or from the grass roots of the sport. He is tainted. I don't know anyone in the sport who thinks otherwise.
Sure, he runs an agency but I don't think that even his clients give him a free pass (not the ones I know anyway).

Linford Christie's free ride dates from the time of his successful 1998 libel case against the journalist John McVicar who had called him out as far back as 1995. McVicar had some pretty convincing evidence which he was barred from using at trial.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1392892/Will-the-Lunchbox-rewrite-libel-law.html

If I remember correctly, McVicar also had another expert, a medic or osteopath, who was able to assess from an athlete's physiognomy whether he was doping or not. I think he expressed the opinion that around 70% of top athletes were doping, including Christie.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

If I remember correctly, McVicar also had another expert, a medic or osteopath, who was able to assess from an athlete's physiognomy whether he was doping or not. I think he expressed the opinion that around 70% of top athletes were doping, including Christie.

Interesting. Cold reading?

I think veloclinic is engaging in something similar in reverse - using technology - to add weight to the claim by an athlete that they are clean.

 

[wrinklyvet]

Linford Christie's free ride dates from the time of his successful 1998 libel case against the journalist John McVicar who had called him out as far back as 1995. McVicar had some pretty convincing evidence which he was barred from using at trial.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1392892/Will-the-Lunchbox-rewrite-libel-law.html

If I remember correctly, McVicar also had another expert, a medic or osteopath, who was able to assess from an athlete's physiognomy whether he was doping or not. I think he expressed the opinion that around 70% of top athletes were doping, including Christie.

Every now and again somebody here suggests that it is easy for journalists to call out dopers and they are incompetent or sloppy in not doing so.

The news item you have quoted does demonstrate why that tends to be wrong.

Joshua Rozenberg, who wrote the Telegraph piece, is one of the most respected journalists in legal matters and is a qualified lawyer himself.

It's a good read and I thank you for posting the link.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

+1 that was a very good look into the situation particularly present within the UK.

 

[zebedee]

Every now and again somebody here suggests that it is easy for journalists to call out dopers and they are incompetent or sloppy in not doing so.

The news item you have quoted does demonstrate why that tends to be wrong.

Joshua Rozenberg, who wrote the Telegraph piece, is one of the most respected journalists in legal matters and is a qualified lawyer himself.

It's a good read and I thank you for posting the link.

I think you got that wrong. McVicar understandably complained about legal obfuscation and procedure that prevented him calling his best evidence. A journalist from a respectable paper would draw on resources that McVicar didn't have. The doping evidence itself was compelling. It wasn't difficult for McVicar to establish the very strong likelihood that Christie was doping.

Now I think of it, Terry Moule, mentioned incorrectly in the article as a physiotherapist, was in fact the osteopath I referred to above. He had a very good knowledge of phsiognomy and was able to work out that Christie had been doping for some time. I learned this from a friend and client of his some years after the case. Sadly Terry Moule is no longer with us.

 

[zebedee]

Joshua Rozenburg is a BBC journalist who toes the BBC line and is not known for tilting at windmills which is basically what outing a celebrity doper necessitates.

 

[Briant_Gumble]

Linford Christie's free ride dates from the time of his successful 1998 libel case against the journalist John McVicar who had called him out as far back as 1995. McVicar had some pretty convincing evidence which he was barred from using at trial.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1392892/Will-the-Lunchbox-rewrite-libel-law.html

If I remember correctly, McVicar also had another expert, a medic or osteopath, who was able to assess from an athlete's physiognomy whether he was doping or not. I think he expressed the opinion that around 70% of top athletes were doping, including Christie.

Great Post, I never Knew about that.

 

[wrinklyvet]

Joshua Rozenburg is a BBC journalist who toes the BBC line and is not known for tilting at windmills which is basically what outing a celebrity doper necessitates.

Quite - It's not his job to do that. He is not a sports writer. He is a legal correspondent, journalist and commentator, with a long and respectable pedigree in that, whether you think he toes a BBC line or not. His work appears in many different places, from legal journals to radio, television and newspapers. He writes about the law and that's what his piece is about - drawing attention to libel law issues. Rozenberg is rated as independent in most quarters. He is apparently politically neutral, writing both for the Telegraph and the Guardian as well as for the Law Society's Gazette, to name a few.

It is McVicar who was trying to out a doper. Rozenberg is explaining the McVicar case and its consequences, with some clarity on the subject of English libel law for the layman.

Now do you have an opinion about where Rozenberg gets these issues wrong?

 

[wrinklyvet]

I think you got that wrong. McVicar understandably complained about legal obfuscation and procedure that prevented him calling his best evidence. A journalist from a respectable paper would draw on resources that McVicar didn't have. The doping evidence itself was compelling. It wasn't difficult for McVicar to establish the very strong likelihood that Christie was doping.

Now I think of it, Terry Moule, mentioned incorrectly in the article as a physiotherapist, was in fact the osteopath I referred to above. He had a very good knowledge of phsiognomy and was able to work out that Christie had been doping for some time. I learned this from a friend and client of his some years after the case. Sadly Terry Moule is no longer with us.

Yes, part of the problem was that McVicar was not well-resourced and had to deal with it on a do-it-yourself basis. It's usually a recipe for disaster. However, nothing is simple and this case still highlights that there is no certainty that defending a libel case will be successful. For that matter, it applies to almost any case, whatever the merits. At the very least, it's costly in time, effort, peace of mind and usually money.

 

[zebedee]

Quite - It's not his job to do that. He is not a sports writer. He is a legal correspondent, journalist and commentator, with a long and respectable pedigree in that, whether you think he toes a BBC line or not. His work appears in many different places, from legal journals to radio, television and newspapers. He writes about the law and that's what his piece is about - drawing attention to libel law issues. Rozenberg is rated as independent in most quarters. He is apparently politically neutral, writing both for the Telegraph and the Guardian as well as for the Law Society's Gazette, to name a few.

It is McVicar who was trying to out a doper. Rozenberg is explaining the McVicar case and its consequences, with some clarity on the subject of English libel law for the layman.

Now do you have an opinion about where Rozenberg gets these issues wrong?

Any legal difficulties in printing a factual truth can be overcome if a reasonably resourced publication and journalist were that way inclined. The Telegraph nonsense published today about Paula Radcliffe is fairly representative of the way things are with media and doping presently. Everyone knows that Radcliffe was the red flagged athlete. She could have been asked questions around the topic of that IAAF suspected dopers list if not (for legal reasons) personal questions of herself. That way she's gradually being smoked out.

As it stands she and the IAAF still have some explaining to do regarding her highly suspicious test result.

 

[wrinklyvet]

Any legal difficulties in printing a factual truth can be overcome if a reasonably resourced publication and journalist were that way inclined. The Telegraph nonsense published today about Paula Radcliffe is fairly representative of the way things are with media and doping presently. Everyone knows that Radcliffe was the red flagged athlete. She could have been asked questions around the topic of that IAAF suspected dopers list if not (for legal reasons) personal questions of herself. That way she's gradually being smoked out.

As it stands she and the IAAF still have some explaining to do regarding her highly suspicious test result.

Well, I've said my piece. I've thanked you for posting the link. I take no issue with Mr Rozenberg. Your theories about what is possible are interesting, but are clearly not shared by those whose future is on the line. I don't blame anyone, well resourced or not, for treading carefully round issues that seem so easy to deal with to people who are not in that position.

 

[zebedee]

Now do you have an opinion about where Rozenberg gets these issues wrong?

No, I don't and your 'point' is irrelevant anyway.

Are you a sort of self-appointed nitpicker? Because the only point I was really trying to make myself was how badly courts can get these things wrong and how such poor decisions can influence and pervert later events. Christie was a massive doper from way back and McVicar by rights ought to have won his case in that he published a factual truth.

 

[zebedee]

Repeated post, sorry.

 

[wrinklyvet]

No, I don't and your 'point' is irrelevant anyway.

Are you a sort of self-appointed nitpicker? Because the only point I was really trying to make myself was how badly courts can get these things wrong and how such poor decisions can influence and pervert later events. Christie was a massive doper from way back and McVicar by rights ought to have won his case in that he published a factual truth.

Well your original post fails to make that point, but I have no further interest in posting in view of your personal insult. Perhaps that was your intention.

 

[sniper]

Well your original post fails to make that point

???
he didn't address rosenberg/burg until you did.
nitpicking is the right word.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

...McVicar by rights ought to have won his case in that he published a factual truth.

By whose rights, though? It sounds like the UK libel law was applied appropriately, and McVicar demonstrated the old adage that ignorance (in this case of the required procedures re getting evidence heard) is no defence in the eyes of the law.

The UK libel law may be a self-contained example of the other old adage that the law is an ***, but it is what it is, and shouldn't be arbitrarily set aside just to bust Christie (amusing though that would be!)

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

The doping evidence itself was compelling. It wasn't difficult for McVicar to establish the very strong likelihood that Christie was doping.

Genuine question here - what's the burden of proof in a UK libel case? Beyond reasonable doubt or on the balance of probabilities?

 

[zebedee]

More likely than not is the simple rule for deciding these cases i.e. 51:49 probability that something either did or didn't happen.

I wasn't referring to McVicar's difficulties in the court room. What seemingly was not difficult for him was that, fired by his suspicion of Christie, he was able to dig on his own and come up with the evidence. Journalists and publications could do the same if they were so minded.

Hoberman rather than Rozenburg (or the law) is the 'go to' place for an explanation as to why the dopers get such an easy ride, both in the press and life generally.

 

[zebedee]

By whose rights, though? It sounds like the UK libel law was applied appropriately, and McVicar demonstrated the old adage that ignorance (in this case of the required procedures re getting evidence heard) is no defence in the eyes of the law.

The UK libel law may be a self-contained example of the other old adage that the law is an ***, but it is what it is, and shouldn't be arbitrarily set aside just to bust Christie (amusing though that would be!)

Who said the law was applied appropriately in McVicar's case? He didn't get a fair hearing and parts of his evidence were blocked from the jury. Had the jury heard the full evidence it is fairly easy to envisage an entirely different outcome become some of them didn't believe Christie anyway. Trial or no trial, what McVicar was saying was the truth. Christie doped. You don't need a court of law to decide truth. Truth has its own independent existence.

 

[wrinklyvet]

Who said the law was applied appropriately in McVicar's case? He didn't get a fair hearing and parts of his evidence were blocked from the jury. Had the jury heard the full evidence it is fairly easy to envisage an entirely different outcome become some of them didn't believe Christie anyway. Trial or no trial, what McVicar was saying was the truth. Christie doped. You don't need a court of law to decide truth. Truth has its own independent existence.

OK you intrigue me again. What jury?

 

[Benotti69]

Everyone knows the UK libel laws are ridiculous.

 

[the sceptic]

Everyone knows the UK libel laws are ridiculous.

yet the UK media claim to be for freedom of speech. Hypocrites.

 

[zebedee]

John McVicar had his evidence suppressed by legal machinations brought about by the doper. The eventual ECHR judgement of 2002 (which Christie also lost incidentally) relates some interesting snippets which McVicar had unearthed.

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pag ... 001-60450#{"itemid":["001-60450"]}

Terry Moule's assessment - see p.14 of the judgement - given in private to McVicar and partly based on his intimate knowledge - was that he was 'certain' Christie was a user. Regrettably, the doper saw to it that Moule was barred from giving evidence and so the jury never saw any of the real serious stuff that corroborated the essential truth which McVicar was on about.

Also interestingly, at 18 is the view expressed by Terry Moule that 70% (and more) of top athletes were using. And he was a man who knew, having not only acted as physio to the British athletics team during the 1992 olympics but also for Christie himself over a number of years. As an aside,he didn't think much of Muller-Wohlfahrt (quack for Bayern FC, Boris Becker etc) either.

 

[zebedee]

Repeat post again, sorry, my bad.

 

[ray j willings]

Does anyone here think Radcliffe will win in april?