Race Radio, anti-RR, Polish and Twitter Campaigns

Page 14 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 10, 2009
2,278
4
11,485
Race Radio said:
[...]the questions that I had sent[...]

Mind posting them somewhere accessible here? Or linking to them? (Read: too lazy to scroll through all the threads. I kinda expected it to be at the head of this thread, but no.)

I've been missing out on this whole saga, and would love to see the document that's elicited such a strange response.

Also, TFF: I just read the Strickland piece and was scrolling through the comments. This skiesofblue/J Lindsey character: Wow. Good luck with that--I hope it doesn't cause you any trouble. :(
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
TeamSkyFans said:
Slander is also spoken, whereas generally libel is written.

But yes, the person doing the Suing has to prove that the person making the accusations knew those accusations to be false when they made them.

Its a very hard thing to prove. Libel is easier, but I cant see anyone getting done for libelous tweets, they would have to shut down twitter.

Yea, I pointed that out to Mr. Lindsay last night.

Libel in the US in regards to a public figure is still based on the criteria of NYT v. Sullivan.

As for twitter, what he also does not understand is that calling him an a$$hole versus what he did with you are two different things. Generally, the thing you both have to prove is damages though. And they have to be real damages. Him getting his feelings hurt over something is not damages. If you lose business, or can prove some other form of actual damage, you have a case.
 
Jan 18, 2010
3,059
0
0
Thoughtforfood said:
Yea, I pointed that out to Mr. Lindsay last night.

Libel in the US in regards to a public figure is still based on the criteria of NYT v. Sullivan.

As for twitter, what he also does not understand is that calling him an a$$hole versus what he did with you are two different things. Generally, the thing you both have to prove is damages though. And they have to be real damages. Him getting his feelings hurt over something is not damages. If you lose business, or can prove some other form of actual damage, you have a case.

Maybe somebody damaged his feelings. He sounds a tool anyway.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Barrus said:
I guess you're right, although it would be nice to see some people with opposing views on here, as long as everyone stays civil. I think it would do the board good, but we haven't really had anyone with differing views on this subject come on, perhaps it's because of what you say, perhaps it's because the general opinion of whether LA doped or not has changed. Also I don't think Polish and Flicker are genuine anymore, they play an act and to have some real genuine fanboys would probably make these discussions a bit better. Although I am happy that the board appears to at least move somewhat away from the LA "haters" and "fanboys" and into some better discussions about other things.

But still he could try to present his case when he sees that he is being discussed here

That would be great if they came on here and there should be no need for it to become uncivil.

Lindsay has written this list of "FACTS" about Livestrong (in the comments section of Bicycling and on the the 'Thanks Livestrong' facebook page), it would be interesting to see where they managed to get these "FACTS" as it would go a long way towards answering RR's questions.
It would be pertinent to know how someone who does not work for Livestrong got these "FACTS" and why Livestrong has not given these "FACTS" to RaceRadio.

JamieLindsay Mon, 2011-03-28 16:18
Race Radio LIES
By Jamie Lindsay. In the comment section of just about every article about Lance Armstrong an anonymous coward who goes by the name “Race Radio” spews hate towards Armstrong and, despicably, The LIVESTRONG Foundation. I could care less about this clown’s spineless rants about the man, but his LIES, preposterous half-truths, and libel towards LIVESTRONG need to be addressed. You see Mr. Radio, all of us have a right to our own opinions, but none of us have the right to our own FACTS!
FACT: LIVESTRONG is not a cancer research focused organization, rather, it is a SURVIVORSHIP focused Foundation. Read or watch their Manifesto and you will see, “We kick in the minute you are diagnosed!” A careful reading of that manifesto will also clearly reveal their entire mission. A review of its actions demonstrates to the entire cancer community that LIVESTRONG is a leader in the fight against cancer.
FACT: Whom did the American Cancer Society ask to attend their recent Washington press conference? LIVESTRONG!
FACT: In 2009 LIVESTRONG hosted the world’s FIRST Global Cancer Summit and paid for the travel and expenses of over 500 delegates from 60 nations and LIVESTRONG staff attending in support of the global cancer awareness event. That event and travel to support three LIVESTRONG Challenges, RAGBRAI, several marathons, and other fundraising activities caused a spike in the LIVESTRONG travel budget.
FACT: The only person who did not have his travel to the LIVESTRONG Global Summit paid for by LIVESTRONG was Lance Armstrong.
FACT: It is the policy and practice the Foundation NEVER pays for any business/personal jet travel for Armstrong. NEVER!
FACT: Armstrong often offers open seats on his plane for LIVESTRONG Staff travel at NO COST! Obviously this results in savings to the Foundation.
FACT: The Demand Media deal is a standard licensing agreement with the Foundation for use of the LIVESTRONG Brand. Just like Nike, Oakley, Radio Shack, FRS and several others, they PAY the Foundation to use the LIVESTRONG Brand. These licensing agreements result in millions of dollars going to the fight against cancer!
FACT: Just like the other companies, Demand Media has signed a personal services contract with Lance Armstrong to add his celebrity status to their products. The only thing which makes the Demand Media deal different is as a new venture, Demand Media wanted to exchange services for a piece of the action and preserve cash, so Armstrong took shares in the company. A fair question to ask might be “would these companies be as interested in supporting LIVESTRONG without Armstrong’s participation in their product marketing?”
FACT: Demand Media operates LIVESTRONG.COM to sell products, many of which generate donations to LIVESTRONG. Of course a marketing company will generate more hits to their website than a Foundation which gives away FREE information about fighting cancer. Hopefully, hits on the Foundation website will never spike as that will indicate all of us have more to do in the fight against cancer than we fear.
FACT: The money LIVESTRONG spent on advertising was spent in large part on global anti-stigma campaigns, Cancer Policy Platforms, Underserved Constituents, Community Programs, and grassroots advocacy. Not the sort of stuff on which one plasters their logo, but necessary to strengthen the fight against cancer.
FACT: In 2009 LIVESTRONG spent approximately $800K on legal expenses, about $500K of which was spent in Court defending against infringement on the LIVESTRONG Brand, which they won. Money well spent since the brand, through licensing agreements and other things brings in millions of dollars to the fight against cancer. The line to which you refer in the LIVESTRONG annual report reads “Legal and Professional.” The FACT is the rest of the money was spent on other non-legal professional services.
FACT: The “investigator” looking into Armstrong’s activities while riding used to work for the IRS. If there were an inkling of anything your allege being even CLOSE to the truth, the IRS would have acted to shut down LIVESTRONG.
FACT: 81 cents of every dollar donated to LIVESTRONG goes directly to cancer related programs. That puts LIVESTRONG near the top of charities in efficiency!
FACT: Armstrong dedicates a lot of personal time to advance the fight against cancer, and that is time he could otherwise spend enriching himself doing things like speaking engagements or commercials.
FACT: All of your allegations and baseless speculations are utter nonsense and intended only to damage LIVESTRONG.
FACT: I have used my name as a sign in for these comments, and YOU are??? FACT: I do not work for LIVESTRONG. I am an airline pilot, business owner, and LIVESTRONG supporter. I am a proud cancer survivor largely due to the information provided by the dedicated and incredibly hard working staff of cancer hating zealots at LIVESTRONG Headquarters in Austin. They deserve respect and NOT your lies and other garbage!
FACT: I have no idea why you would waste your time lying about the LIVESTRONG Foundation, perhaps at some point you were somehow mistreated by someone at LIVESTRONG, or Armstrong out climbed one of your spandex-clad heroes, or your parents just raised an idiot, but frankly I have had enough of your lies and know more will be coming because that is all you have. Regardless, I HOPE the LIVESTRONG Foundation will take action against you by subpoenaing your IP address from this publication and others, and then sue your a$$ off.
FACT: I hope prior to suing your a$$ off, LIVESTRONG lawyers are compassionate enough to give you time to remove your head!
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
1
0
Race Radio said:
This is perhaps the most absurd part of this whole thing. I had intended on keeping my exchange with Livestrong private. .

Race, this is not the first time you've said you intended to "keep it private".

It is not the second time or the third time either.
You have made this point multiple times.
It must be important to you - "keeping it private...."

So tell us Clinic guys - why did you want to keep it private?
Were you planning on keeping their responses to yourself?
 
Dec 7, 2010
5,507
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
That would be great if they came on here and there should be no need for it to become uncivil.

Lindsay has written this list of "FACTS" about Livestrong...

And just add to the timeline of events (for those just tuning in or wanting to keep up) and how we got to where we are...

The above quote was on Bicycling.com, in response to comments made by RR as part of the reaction to Bill Strickland's article on Armstrong.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,854
2
0
Granville57 said:
And just add to the timeline of events (for those just tuning in or wanting to keep up) and how we got to where we are...

The above quote was on Bicycling.com, in response to comments made by RR as part of the reaction to Bill Strickland's article on Armstrong.

It gives you an ideal of how out of touch with reality these guys are. He makes a big deal that he answered my questions, when he clearly did not, and does so in the comments section of an article that details Armstrong's doping.......:rolleyes:
 
May 3, 2010
2,662
0
0
jimmypop said:
Considering the cutting-edge therapies Armstrong had in his fridge at home, there may be tangible value in getting a support pack from LAF.

Like a kid on Christmas: "Yeah, so EPO! Sweet, Hemassist! ALL RIIGGHHT some HGH and anabolics for when the tumor is gone!"

Some links:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Thanks-Livestrong/147982721884020

http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2009/072009/07142009/479308

He'd like it if manufacturers would mention the link between smokeless tobacco and cancer:

http://livestrongblog.org/2010/04/30/new-smokeless-tobacco-ads/

(From: http://effcancer.blogspot.com/2010/08/livestrong.html#comments)

Get your tissues:

http://www.veoh.com/watch/v18103343Nb3fz7K9


Lindsay, who is not married

Can't think why...
 

jimmypop

BANNED
Jul 16, 2010
376
1
0
It bugs me that people think they don't have the wherewithal to overcome an illness without leaning on a false idol.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
thehog said:
Lance aint be suing anyone. But he likes his people to think that he will. Right you are… what exactly is the slander? That I’ve not established. Just because you don’t like what you hear doesn’t mean its not true. None the less I don’t think you can blame the messenger. I think the problem is at source.

The antiraceradio guy is completely distancing himself from the "you are getting sued" line that Special Ed Lindsay is spewing. He seems to realize that only a moronic raving lunatic writes such stupid things. I think the the source attracts people like Capt. Lawsuit. Look at jackhammer, BPC, carboncrank, coolhand, No_Positives,...well, the list is quite long. At least he attracted Wonderlance, so they're not all bad.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Granville57 said:
And just add to the timeline of events (for those just tuning in or wanting to keep up) and how we got to where we are...

The above quote was on Bicycling.com, in response to comments made by RR as part of the reaction to Bill Strickland's article on Armstrong.

Ooops - apologies, I forgot to link the piece. As you say it is from the comments section in Bicycling here and also on this 'Thanks Livestrong' Facebook page.

(I will edit it in to the other post also)
 

Barrus

BANNED
Apr 28, 2010
3,480
1
0
TeamSkyFans said:
Slander is also spoken, whereas generally libel is written.

But yes, the person doing the Suing has to prove that the person making the accusations knew those accusations to be false when they made them.

Its a very hard thing to prove. Libel is easier, but I cant see anyone getting done for libelous tweets, they would have to shut down twitter.

Not really, in neither the USA, nor the UK is the ISP generally accountable, so twitter itself would not really have a problem

@ TFF not really to attack you or anything, but wasn't there quite a recent decision that adjusted the standard put forth in Sullivan, or at least did so slightly
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Barrus said:
Not really, in neither the USA, nor the UK is the ISP generally accountable, so twitter itself would not really have a problem

@ TFF not really to attack you or anything, but wasn't there quite a recent decision that adjusted the standard put forth in Sullivan, or at least did so slightly

Nope, nothing that has changed the standard of proof (actual malice) a public figure has to prove. Of course parts have been interpreted by district courts and appeals courts, but nothing has overruled the basic rule of Sullivan.

Scalia wants to reverse it, but he hasn't yet.
 
Apr 3, 2009
12,590
8,447
28,180
TeamSkyFans said:
Slander is also spoken, whereas generally libel is written.

But yes, the person doing the Suing has to prove that the person making the accusations knew those accusations to be false when they made them.

Its a very hard thing to prove. Libel is easier, but I cant see anyone getting done for libelous tweets, they would have to shut down twitter.

One would think that they'd have to be accusations as well, not questions.

Never heard of anyone winning a suit because someone asked some tough questions.
 

Barrus

BANNED
Apr 28, 2010
3,480
1
0
Thoughtforfood said:
Nope, nothing that has changed the standard of proof (actual malice) a public figure has to prove. Of course parts have been interpreted by district courts and appeals courts, but nothing has overruled the basic rule of Sullivan.

Scalia wants to reverse it, but he hasn't yet.

Aah probably just heard that somewhere
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Barrus said:
Aah probably just heard that somewhere

Yea, Scalia is a frightening man. He would adjudicate our country back to the stone age if he could. Reagan's worst legacy. Old Ronnie really did a number on the country with that pick.
 
Dec 7, 2010
5,507
0
0
Re: slander & libel

To repeat the oft mentioned and obvious: If Floyd hasn't been sued, nobody is going to be sued--certainly no one on this forum. In Floyd's case, it probably wouldn't be too difficult to prove "damages" if one were to cite the SI article and the Bicycling article, show how both relied on Floyd's statements as a catalyst for at least some of what was printed, and demonstrate a negative effect on the brand as a result.

But then of course they would have to prove that Floyd willingly and knowingly distorted the truth. Then witnesses would be called to verify or discredit his claims, and then...oh wait...isn't that what's coming, more or less?
(I also find it endlessly amusing that the protectors of "the myth" seem to either ignore, or can't come to terms with, the fact that the real legal proceedings against LA & Co. haven't even begun. But they are most certainly on the way)

Since Floyd hasn't been sued, there is nothing in the world stopping me from shouting from the highest mountain top and distributing by whatever means suit me, that I believe all the claims that Floyd has made against LA. I could quote the Kimmage interview endlessly and simply say that I believe every word of it. I could defend what was put forth as firsthand, eyewitness testimony on the part of Floyd.

If anyone has a problem with that, they would ultimately have to take it up with Floyd, not me. But he seems to have been left to go on his merry way. Which makes all these recent threats of legal retaliation stupid beyond words.
 
Apr 9, 2009
976
0
0
jimmypop said:
It bugs me that people think they don't have the wherewithal to overcome an illness without leaning on a false idol.

It bugs me that someone would credit a celebrity trademark and a few catch phrases with saving their life instead of the oncologist and drug researchers/manufacturer who actually saved their life.
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
1
0
Race Radio said:
I had no intention of making this public and did not do so until a large group of them started attacking me on Twitter.

Race Radio said:
As I have said my goal was not to bait or troll Livestrong but to engage with them about to all the questions that are out there about the foundation. .

Race Radio said:
This is perhaps the most absurd part of this whole thing. I had intended on keeping my exchange with Livestrong private. .

Sorry, RR, I have to call BS on this "keeping it private" thing.

C'mon, who would believe you would keep it private?
Although Livestrong almost believed it - until they realized you were trolling lol.

What, you are telling the TRUTH?
You DID want to keep it private?
WHY did you want to keep it private?
Were you planning on keeping their responses to YOURSELF?

Does it make more sense to keep things private facelessly over the interwebs,
or face-to-face in a conference room. Maybe in Austin lol.

"Keeps thing private" lol again
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Polish said:
Sorry, RR, I have to call BS on this "keeping it private" thing.

C'mon, who would believe you would keep it private?
Although Livestrong almost believed it - until they realized you were trolling lol.

What, you are telling the TRUTH?
You DID want to keep it private?
WHY did you want to keep it private?
Were you planning on keeping their responses to YOURSELF?

Does it make more sense to keep things private facelessly over the interwebs,
or face-to-face in a conference room. Maybe in Austin lol.

"Keeps thing private" lol again

If they have nothing to hide, why would it matter?

What do you know about "truth?"

You asking genuine non-troll questions...lulz

for+the+lulz.jpeg