Paula Radcliffe to run london marathon in April

[wrinklyvet]

In law, for the most part, the person with the most money wins.

That has more than a grain of truth in it.

In this case legal aid for McVicar was unavailable and he defended personally for most of the case, I understand.

It's a bit brave to put yourself forward as a front man making allegations (however true they may be) if you don't have the means to defend yourself properly.

In libel cases where the defendants are fully represented they rack up massive bills and may not get them repaid.

That's the main reason why most journalists and their editors don't go out on a limb.

 

[blackcat]

In law, for the most part, the person with the most money wins.

unless ur Lance, cos Thom Weisel has more coin. much more coin.

 

[del1962]

unless ur Lance, cos Thom Weisel has more coin. much more coin.

Ultimately it was the feds who built the case, and they have more money than Lance or Weisel

 

[gillan1969]

Let me try one more time to help with this. I back W&G's comments all the way because, as zebedee has been kind enough to agree as well, McVicar lost his case because he did not comply with the rules of procedure, so that his best evidence was not heard. It may have made all the difference to the outcome.

You can think what you like about rules of procedure and about authority in general, but they are a way that was devised to prevent (in this context) new evidence being sprung on the other side with inadequate notice and details. This is not Perry Mason territory.

The fact that the outcome was wrong, that Christie was later proved to be a doper, that McVicar was right all along is only something that can be known (in a legal sense) with hindsight.

As W&G indicated, McVicar had all the time in the world to get his ducks in a row and he failed to do so. It's not necessary to agree with how the court rules are framed to come to this simple conclusion.

If somebody says something about someone else that was damaging within the context of libel law and pleads justification as a defence because it was true but he fails to show it was true he will lose. Simple as that. McVicar failed. Every other argument about this is based on hindsight.

Should he have failed? Not if you look at matters while at the same time disregarding why he failed. Yes if you think he just failed to play the litigation game right.

Nobody has suggested judges or juries are infallible - patently they aren't. Patently they also often don't know the background to every situation - it is for the litigants to enlighten them. But if one finds oneself enmeshed with the law it is desirable to give oneself the best chance. McVicar didn't.

Zebedee produced the link to the Telegraph report. He says he does not disagree with Josha Rozenberg, the author. He would do well, then, to stop trying to confuse hindsight with the legal niceties.

And I wasn't best pleased to be called by him nitpicking, considering the extensive attention given to this by others since I last posted.

not really...its the same as Bliar/Bush's WMD...it was patently obvious to anyone that if he really did have them then he wouldn't, by definition, be attacked...much as it was patently obvious to anyone at the time that Christie was at it and as it is patently obvious to anyone now that Froome is at it...sometimes you don't need hindsight

 

[wrinklyvet]

not really...its the same as Bliar/Bush's WMD...it was patently obvious to anyone that if he really did have them then he wouldn't, by definition, be attacked...much as it was patently obvious to anyone at the time that Christie was at it and as it is patently obvious to anyone now that Froome is at it...sometimes you don't need hindsight

You don't think you may be missing the point to make another?

 

[gillan1969]

You don't think you may be missing the point to make another?

no...the point is that sometimes procedure can serve only procedure and that the underlying issue can get missed.......here, procedure got in the way of 'the truth'

 

[Dear Wiggo]

no...the point is that sometimes procedure can serve only procedure and that the underlying issue can get missed.......here, procedure got in the way of 'the truth'

Some people will not get this point at all. It's quite eye opening the first time you interact with such a person, given how completely different - alien even - their attitude towards a particular scenario is.

A study has shown they are more likely to press the button in this experiment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

 

[blackcat]

Some people will not get this point at all. It's quite eye opening the first time you interact with such a person, given how completely different - alien even - their attitude towards a particular scenario is.

A study has shown they are more likely to press the button in this experiment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

like Stanford prison, on a meta level, both experiments are about sublimating agency and autonomy. but if you ask someone in the West, they will utter a dogian pavlovian (sic) response, "i am for freedom", but Easterners will give you a more truthful response when they say they want putin as metaphor even if not putin qua putin. different but same.

 

[zebedee]

Nitpickers clubbing together to miss the point. Law doesn't exist for its own ends. It exists to serve. It isn't sacrosanct.

This case and many like it were instrumental in getting outdated UK libel laws changed to make it more difficult for cheats, dopers and liars to worm their way around the law to protect their unwarranted reputations as public heroes.

What is sacrosanct is truth, not law. The law can be an a.s and where the occasion provides, we should have no respect for such law.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

This case and many like it were instrumental in getting outdated UK libel laws changed to make it more difficult for cheats, dopers and liars to worm their way around the law to protect their unwarranted reputations as public heroes.

Have the UK libel laws changed that much? They are still stacked very much against someone making a claim that they can't substantially prove even if everyone "knows" it to be true.

And the main aspect of the law that worked against McVicar - the requirement to present evidence in good time - hasn't changed.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

The law can be an a.s and where the occasion provides, we should have no respect for such law.

Well good luck with that view if it ever comes to it personally for you!

 

[zebedee]

And the main aspect of the law that worked against McVicar - the requirement to present evidence in good time - hasn't changed.

Somewhat disingenuous of you, I'd say, when Christie's lawyers sat on the procedural irregularity for several months before ambushing McVicar a week before the trial with pre-trial pleadings to have his key evidence excluded.

It's also disingenuous of you and the other keyboard warrior to imply McVicar sat on his ar.e for two years. McVicar was hampered by the understandable reluctance of his witnesses to commit themselves because of their personal association with Christie.

This is the kind of sh.t that beguiled an unwordly judge and a naive jury:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/116260.stm

Less than six months later, Christie was popped for nandrolone, with the obvious inference that he had lied in court. But then of course that's all ok in your world of due process.

Why don't you read McVicar's book before pontificating on the nuances? Some trials are an absolute disgrace to British justice and an affront to the law. This was one of them.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Somewhat disingenuous of you, I'd say, when Christie's lawyers sat on the procedural irregularity for several months before ambushing McVicar a week before the trial with pre-trial pleadings to have his key evidence excluded.

It's also disingenuous of you and the other keyboard warrior to imply McVicar sat on his ar.e for two years. McVicar was hampered by the understandable reluctance of his witnesses to commit themselves because of their personal association with Christie.

This is the kind of sh.t that beguiled an unwordly judge and a naive jury:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/116260.stm

Less than six months later, Christie was popped for nandrolone, with the obvious inference that he had lied in court. But then of course that's all ok in your world of due process.

Why don't you read McVicar's book before pontificating on the nuances? Some trials are an absolute disgrace to British justice and an affront to the law. This was one of them.

I've not read any McVicar publications, so can you fill me in on how Christie's lawyers ambushed McVicar a week before the trial to have evidence excluded when the evidence that McVicar wanted to use was only presented on the Friday before the trial started? This aspect of the case does not appear to have been part of McVicar's appeal to the ECHR. (It was the decision to not allow his late presented evidence that he appealed.)

Anyway, we have to have defined legal processes and follow them. The alternative is vigilante justice, which is great I suppose if you're in the posse rather than an ever diminishing distance in front of it!

The UK legal system (along with the legal systems in most, if not all, developed countries) is explicitly designed to favour false not guilty verdicts over false guilty verdicts on the grounds that it is better to have a guilty man walk free than bang up an innocent man. (The same applies to women and non-custodial sentences, obviously) The prime exception to this is child protection where the system prefers to take kids into care where no risk actually exists than to knowingly leave a child with abusive carers.

One could make an argument that the legal system is too soft. My favourite stats in this respect are (from the UK in 2011):

- 408 people convicted of causing death by dangerous driving or driving whilst under the influence

- Of these, nearly 40% (153) avoided jail completely.

- And 25% (104) were jailed for less than two years.

Compared to that, Christie evading your preferred justice in the libel court doesn't seem quite so outrageous.

 

[The Hitch]

Paula getting good press today for "throwing her support behind" a London 10k event.

Seems those who claimed it was only a matter of time before the name was leaked, could not have been more wrong.

 

[the sceptic]

Re:

Paula getting good press today for "throwing her support behind" a London 10k event.

Seems those who claimed it was only a matter of time before the name was leaked, could not have been more wrong.

yeah I guess people underestimated just how spineless british journalists are. Of course they will have no problem going straight back to printing Paulas anti-doping garbage after seeing the list.

the irony of this quote really is off the charts

Paula Radcliffe has criticised Nike’s decision to award controversial sprinter Justin Gatlin with a new sponsorship deal, describing the decision as not reflecting “the core values of the Nike that I am proud to represent”.

 

[sniper]

I hadn't seen this before. From january.
More bluff from Radcliffe? Sounds like it. At least it doesn't strike me as a very convincing denial that she's on the list.

As a second Daily Mail article reports, Radcliffe is also upset that German journalist Hajo Seppelt has not turned over to the IAAF, the governing body of track and field and road racing, a purported list of 150 athletes who allegedly produced suspicious drug samples between 2006 and 2008 but whose results were not followed up on by testers. The list reportedly includes one famous British name.

Because Seppelt hasn’t shared the list with the IAAF, Radcliffe says, “They (the IAAF) won’t come out and say ‘we have nothing, none of our records show any of these people that you’re talking about’” because they don’t know the names involved. In the meanwhile, the Internet fills with speculation as to who that “famous British name” might be.

http://www.runnersworld.com/elite-runne ... suspicions

Or here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/others ... alues.html

 

[SkyTears]

Guys i have a list with 100 cyclist names that produced dodgy testing results but never been folowed up.

It has 1 italian, 1 colombian, 1 spanish and 1 british high profile riders on it.

p.s. if you have such thing show it or stfu. ***edited by mod***

 

[Dear Wiggo]

incontinence?

 

[SeriousSam]

lol'd so hard, almost leaked a little

 

[the sceptic]

I almost can't see the screen through all the tears

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

Guys i have a list with 100 cyclist names that produced dodgy testing results but never been folowed up.

It has 1 italian, 1 colombian, 1 spanish and 1 british high profile riders on it.

p.s. if you have such thing show it or stfu. ........................

You show us your list 1st then I'll show you mine

 

[TheSpud]

Re:

I almost can't see the screen through all the tears

Why's that then?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I'm all teary-eyed.

Paula that you with something in your pants?

 

[DirtyWorks]

I hadn't seen this before. From january.
More bluff from Radcliffe? Sounds like it. At least it doesn't strike me as a very convincing denial that she's on the list.

IAAF would cover for her. Without a doubt. Lies, misdirects, all probably better than Hein or Pat. The legacy of the London games are riding on it.

Seppelt needs to release the data in another country where he doesn't draw lawyers. This is where the guy from the Citizen 4 documentary did it right.

 

[sniper]

IAAF would cover for her. Without a doubt. Lies, misdirects, all probably better than Hein or Pat. The legacy of the London games are riding on it.

not a shadow of a doubt.
That bit that I quoted, what I read there is Radcliffe basically admitting that she's on the list, but that as long as Seppelt doesn't release it, IAAF won't (have the need to) issue an official rebuttal.

Everything Lord Coe/IAAF have said on the matter thus far (including legal threats to Seppelt) suggests they're in full cover-up mode.