Sky/Froome Talk Only (No Way Sky Are Cleans?)

[BYOP88]

You mean MC (not LF)? The whole libel thing is kinda funny when it comes to online forums.

Yeah Mrs Froome was the one doing the threatening, but has now deleted the tweet to Fleur and Mew. No idea how Mew got dragged into to it though.

But can anyone explain how, someone living in France can sue someone of another nationality under British law? Does that mean as an American I can sue a person from New Zealand using Turkish law?

 

[King Boonen]

Yeah Mrs Froome was the one doing the threatening, but has now deleted the tweet to Fleur and Mew. No idea how Mew got dragged into to it though.

But can anyone explain how, someone living in France can sue someone of another nationality under British law? Does that mean as an American I can sue a person from New Zealand using Turkish law?

I believe it is to do with where the libel has occurred and can be accessed from. So I guess in terms of things on the internet that's pretty much anywhere. If I can read the libel from the UK, then it can be tried in a UK court.

British libel laws are notorious for favoring the plaintiff, rightly or wrongly depending on your position, so many people will prefer to bring cases here if at all possible.

 

[BYOP88]

I believe it is to do with where the libel has occurred and can be accessed from. So I guess in terms of things on the internet that's pretty much anywhere. If I can read the libel from the UK, then it can be tried in a UK court.

British libel laws are notorious for favoring the plaintiff, rightly or wrongly depending on your position, so many people will prefer to bring cases here if at all possible.

Thanks for that info King Boonen.

 

[Netserk]

It depends on which site. This site is under British law, but a site like Feltet.dk is only under Danish law.

According to Mrs Froome he weights 68 kilos

 

[King Boonen]

It depends on which site. This site is under British law, but a site like Feltet.dk is only under Danish law.

According to Mrs Froome he weights 68 kilos

Thanks. Why do .coms come under UK law though if that's the case? Aren't they all US domains? Or do they come under all countries laws?

I'm inferring from what you said that countries domains are specific to that country, hope I'm not wrong.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Thanks. Why do .coms come under UK law though if that's the case? Aren't they all US domains? Or do they come under all countries laws?

I'm inferring from what you said that countries domains are specific to that country, hope I'm not wrong.

.com = .commercial
.us = united states

where the site is hosted, or its owning company resides, will have far more bearing on the jurisdiction than the TLD of the site.

 

[Netserk]

This^^

Also note that in the bottom of the site it says:

Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.

Which is why this site is under British law and British law only.

 

[Ripper]

Still, conversation on a forum about these topics is hardly the stuff of a libel case.

 

[Netserk]

I'm not a lawyer so I don't know, but if a user is completely anonymous and uses a proxy, then it'll be quite difficult to sue the poster. (maybe it's the site that'll be sued then....)

 

[The Hitch]

Sastre did all 3 in 2006. Although in the Giro he was helping out RoboBasso.



But be careful, she'll threaten to sue you for libel under British Law.

but then if froome ever gets caught, you stand to make millions.

 

[thehog]

No contradiction. I think Froome had bilharzia, but I don't believe that the amount of talent he showed prior to the disease messing things up for him was enough to justify the enormous strides that he made, and also am suspicious of the timing of this huge jump (just before contract negotiations) followed by another down period. I therefore think that the improvement of Froome in August 2011 is more than can just be explained by "ill Froome/healthy Froome" just as Cobo's history of depression and struggles to fit in at Caisse d'Epargne mean that the difference between Cobo 2009 and 2010 is more than just "clean Cobo/dirty Cobo".

Also, I picked Martin not because he's supposedly clean (though he is) but because he just won one of the biggest races in the sport this weekend, so he's fresh in the memory. Martin won the Froome breakout stage to La Covatilla, in fact. I thought Froome was credible then, I thought he was a mountain domestique who buried himself for his leader and did an awesome job, and would probably be burning himself out in the first two weeks for the far more proven Löfkvist to take over in week 3 as Wiggins' domestique of choice. I even advocated that he soft pedal the ITT to be fresher for Wiggins, which shows you just how much I underestimated his ITT capabilities (he beat Cancellara the next day). Martin? He behaved like a typical climber, and lost much time, and thus there was no overperformance to raise an eyebrow at.

There have been guys who've come out of nowhere like Froome did... most of those fairytales ended the same way. And there have been guys who've conquered all before them like Froome does, or at least would if the team would let him... most of those stories ended the same way too. In the context of these, seeing a guy who was once a moderately promising youngster (but not as promising as, say, John-Lee Augustyn, who was younger and on the same team) suddenly turn into a guy who outclimbs Contador and out-TTs Cancellara. Are you seriously telling me you didn't wince slightly at that?

The oddity of the blood disease was he kept going back to SA/Kenya each were he caught it from in the first place.

He got it last year and again this year, his most important, went back again!

You'd think with his shot at the Tour title he'd skip going back to SA for a year.

Yes good training weather but to risk the infamous blood disease again?

 

[King Boonen]

I won't quote for brevity, thanks guys.

 

[Bag of Guts]

A question...

1) Emergent drugs which strip body mass and increase strength are identified as the main new problematic substances by anti-doping authorities, with WADA going so far as to issue a warning to athletes about their use.

2) Around the same time, a new dominant team emerges whose top 2 riders are noted for profound transformations both in performance (from mid-pack to GC podium) an in physicality (extreme weight loss). Riders who are now out TT-ing powerhouse TT specialists while also out-climbing top-tier mountain goats.

Question: Does this situation not cause you even slight misgivings about the believability of Chris Froome (and Sky)?

This one's for you JimmyFingers / Coinineach / Pedro / sublimit / webvan / Wallace and Gromit.

I don't mean to be confrontational by naming you. I'm genuinely interested in your interpretation of this situation and what (if any) any doubts that you may have.

P.s. I know GW50... and AICAR have their own thread but it's Chris Froome (and, perhaps, Wiggins) whose performance appears to demonstrate the purported effects of these drugs most clearly.

 

[The Hitch]

I'm not a lawyer so I don't know, but if a user is completely anonymous and uses a proxy, then it'll be quite difficult to sue the poster. (maybe it's the site that'll be sued then....)

There was a major lance and sky fanboy called mambo95 who used to post here who was trying to contact riders who got discussed in the clinic to tell them to sue the posters. Didn't work out I don't think.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Froome could use some bike handling lessons from this chap:

http://youtu.be/bJXXckWLc0E

 

[JimmyFingers]

A question...

1) Emergent drugs which strip body mass and increase strength are identified as the main new problematic substances by anti-doping authorities, with WADA going so far as to issue a warning to athletes about their use.

2) Around the same time, a new dominant team emerges whose top 2 riders are noted for profound transformations both in performance (from mid-pack to GC podium) an in physicality (extreme weight loss). Riders who are now out TT-ing powerhouse TT specialists while also out-climbing top-tier mountain goats.

Question: Does this situation not cause you even slight misgivings about the believability of Chris Froome (and Sky)?

This one's for you JimmyFingers / Coinineach / Pedro / sublimit / webvan / Wallace and Gromit.

I don't mean to be confrontational by naming you. I'm genuinely interested in your interpretation of this situation and what (if any) any doubts that you may have.

P.s. I know GW50... and AICAR have their own thread but it's Chris Froome (and, perhaps, Wiggins) whose performance appears to demonstrate the purported effects of these drugs most clearly.

As I said, there is a plausible narrative that Froome's development is clean.

As for weight loss drugs, its pure conjecture really: WADA make some noises about certain drugs and we go 'ooh, I wonder if that is what Sky are on' with only the vaguest understanding of the drug and its affects. It underlines how little is actually known. 6 months ago Sky were definitely on EPO and bags, then it was AICAR, then AICAR and GWwhatsit, now people are mentioning genedoping.

I don't have a clue, I don't have any answers as to what the riders might be doing if they are doping, but I do think there are feasible narratives that they are doing it clean. At the end of the day you don't need a drug to lose weight.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Question: Does this situation not cause you even slight misgivings about the believability of Chris Froome (and Sky)?

This one's for you JimmyFingers / Coinineach / Pedro / sublimit / webvan / Wallace and Gromit.

Yes.

I've stated several times that I am suspicious of Sky, Froome, Rogers, Wiggo and Porte, in that order. (Porte and Wiggo may swap places this season.)

As Father In Law says about investments: If it sounds too good to be true then it probably is.

However, that doesn't mean I support every "theory" put forward by the vociferous anti-Sky faction.

To be honest, I'm not really bothered either way. That people get paid to play sport seems rather farcical to me. That some people also dope whilst getting paid to play sport is only marginally more farcical, if at all.

Obviously, the subject interests me, as otherwise I wouldn't be on this forum. But lots of things interest me in which I have no meaningful concern as to the outcome.

 

[RownhamHill]

I'm not a lawyer so I don't know, but if a user is completely anonymous and uses a proxy, then it'll be quite difficult to sue the poster. (maybe it's the site that'll be sued then....)

Traditionally, as it's the site that's actually publishing the views, then they'd be jointly liable in any action (I think). Hence why the Sunday Times got sued by Lance Armstrong, not David Walsh - the article was published by the Times.

But I'm not sure that still stands for internet forums and such like - last year Lord McAlpine (who got falsely accused of sex abuse on Twitter) threatened to sue thousands of twitter users (and is indeed continuing with action against at least one of them), but made no mention of suing Twitter itself.

 

[taiwan]

As I said, there is a plausible narrative that Froome's development is clean.

As for weight loss drugs, its pure conjecture really: WADA make some noises about certain drugs and we go 'ooh, I wonder if that is what Sky are on' with only the vaguest understanding of the drug and its affects. It underlines how little is actually known. 6 months ago Sky were definitely on EPO and bags, then it was AICAR, then AICAR and GWwhatsit, now people are mentioning genedoping.

I don't have a clue, I don't have any answers as to what the riders might be doing if they are doping, but I do think there are feasible narratives that they are doing it clean. At the end of the day you don't need a drug to lose weight.

Plausible narratives: the cheapest doping accessory.

 

[Benotti69]

Plausible narratives: the cheapest doping accessory.

after Marginal Gains.

 

[Benotti69]

As I said, there is a plausible narrative that Froome's development is clean.

As for weight loss drugs, its pure conjecture really: WADA make some noises about certain drugs and we go 'ooh, I wonder if that is what Sky are on' with only the vaguest understanding of the drug and its affects. It underlines how little is actually known. 6 months ago Sky were definitely on EPO and bags, then it was AICAR, then AICAR and GWwhatsit, now people are mentioning genedoping.

I don't have a clue, I don't have any answers as to what the riders might be doing if they are doping, but I do think there are feasible narratives that they are doing it clean. At the end of the day you don't need a drug to lose weight.

Losing weight without losing power and in some cases increasing power is performance enhanced doping.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Plausible narratives: the cheapest doping accessory.

Except they are plausible, just whether you believe them or not.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Losing weight without losing power and in some cases increasing power is performance enhanced doping.

Is this canon? You can't reduce your fat percentage without compromising power?

 

[taiwan]

Except they are plausible, just whether you believe them or not.

Some people will swallow any old carp. Any old carp is therefore literally plausible.

Is this canon? You can't reduce your fat percentage without compromising power?

Can a pro bike racer though?

 

[martinvickers]

Traditionally, as it's the site that's actually publishing the views, then they'd be jointly liable in any action (I think). Hence why the Sunday Times got sued by Lance Armstrong, not David Walsh - the article was published by the Times.

But I'm not sure that still stands for internet forums and such like - last year Lord McAlpine (who got falsely accused of sex abuse on Twitter) threatened to sue thousands of twitter users (and is indeed continuing with action against at least one of them), but made no mention of suing Twitter itself.

US - s230 communications decency act. No provider...of an interactive computer service shsll be treated ss the publisher of any info provided by another content provider.

Uk law significantly different. Goldsmith v sperrings (1977) 2AER 566. See slso godfrey v demon internet.