The Article: WSJ - reopened!

[Cobblestones]

http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2010/07/wsj_to_spoil_lance_armstrongs.php

Whoa! The press is really turning on this. I had a look at some European news outlets earlier and there's plenty of bad press about LA.

Der Spiegel has a story which translates to the last ride of the doping veterans.

Johan Kaggestad hopes that Basso and Vino won't succeed in this year's tour, and (I think for the first time) says that he's convinced that Armstrong was doped in 1999 (he thinks LA is clean now, but without a chance of winning).

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Well, not saying I think it would fly... but the timing of the release (especially if they've had the story on the shelf for a week like many here thought), could be argued as malicious if the WSJ was found to knowingly print false information.

Not that I think it's the case.

I am not expecting anything particularly explosive (no, no sources just my opinion) but whatever is printed is done by the WSJ - so it will be done to their high standard. I realize you put in the qualifier - but it will not be false information.

It is not so much what is printed - more who is printing it, very difficult for other publications to continue to write fawning articles about LA when the WSJ is stating the opposite.......all this while a Federal investigation is quietly working away in the background.

 

[alberto.legstrong]

"The link you are accessing has been blocked by the Barracuda Web Filter".

It sounds like my computer is telling me to stop trying to read up on Lance and get back to work. Since 3/4ths of my office isn't here anyway, that's not really going to happen.

Barracuda hates cancer almost as much as God.

 

[Barrus]

I don't think he can prove it.

But if somehow he could... then I think they could get that extra "malicious" bit from the timing... if they could prove the WSJ sat on it until the opening weekend of the Tour. I don't think the "malicious" side is the big gamestopper... it's the idea that they knew the information to be false. If they could somehow prove the latter, then I think the former would be somewhat easy.

But again... there's no way he could win a case like this.

well, you can say it is malicious to put it out at that time, however it would also make the most economical sense to bring it out at that time.
However these are just semantics and I do agree with you. I myself do not believe that LA will bring this case. But if he does, I do not see WSJ bowing out with a settlement that easily

 

[Publicus]

Well, not saying I think it would fly... but the timing of the release (especially if they've had the story on the shelf for a week like many here thought), could be argued as malicious if the WSJ was found to knowingly print false information.

Not that I think it's the case.

The timing of the release is for maximum impact and to drive eyeballs and dollars. Otherwise known as a good business decision.

I really would steer folks away from the legal angle here. Armstrong may have a lot of money, but he didn't get that way throwing money away (which is what a lawsuit would be).

 

[Publicus]

Barracuda hates cancer almost as much as God.

Maybe this link will work (your link gave me issues too):


http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2010/07/wsj_to_spoil_lance_armstrongs.php#more

 

[scribe]

If they have a source, it isn't "printing anything with hopes," especially if it is corroborated. And contrary to your suggestions, the WSJ is still good enough to know what it can and cannot print. I don't think they will be calling you for an opinion of that based on your posts.

A source, particularly ones around a so-called drugs scene, can be rather easy to pick apart regarding credibility.

Of course, keep in mind that we ARE jumping the gun on all this. Although guys in the know regarding the article, also spilled the beans on the sex, drugs, and r&r. Can't wait to see how the story was vetted at headquarters.

 

[red_flanders]

Landis = $0
WSJ = $$$$$$$$$$

Wait...you're suggesting...that he wasn't entirely honest when he said "I don't need to do that anymore"?? That maybe, his lack of a lawsuit was motivated by...greed? I'd suggest it's a desire not to see the inside of a courtroom where people could be deposed, but...

Either way, it's just another lie. Chalk up another one. Anyone have more chalk? I'm out.

 

[alberto.legstrong]

Well, not saying I think it would fly... but the timing of the release (especially if they've had the story on the shelf for a week like many here thought), could be argued as malicious if the WSJ was found to knowingly print false information.

Not that I think it's the case.

I agree that is likely NOT to be the case. That sounds to me like the pot calling the kettle black. This could actually simply be a case of actual journalism. (Surprising though that may seem! )

 

[frenchfry]

The fact that the Journal has won 33 Pulitzer Prizes on a broad spectrum of subjects outside of financial reporting, including one in 1997 (two years after my dad passed away) for a series of articles on AIDS, apparently has no bearing on the matter.

When you put it that way, it clearly qualifies for "tabloid" status.

 

[Anonymous]

lol!

Where do you guys come from??? haha Gotta love posting with linear-thinking roadie types.

Okay, then you detail how NYT v Sullivan (you know, the precedent that is used in any case like this) could be applied to prove your assertion. I'd like to hear the speculation you have to twist up to make it work. Fact is that the case law here is pretty straight forward for A legal precedent.

 

[red_flanders]

well, you can say it is malicious to put it out at that time, however it would also make the most economical sense to bring it out at that time.
However these are just semantics and I do agree with you. I myself do not believe that LA will bring this case. But if he does, I do not see WSJ bowing out with a settlement that easily

Case against what?

Look, if there's any chance of witnesses who have knowledge of the team's activities being deposed and called to the stand, you have a 100% lock that Armstrong won't sue.

 

[alberto.legstrong]

Wait...you're suggesting...that he wasn't entirely honest when he said "I don't need to do that anymore"?? That maybe, his lack of a lawsuit was motivated by...greed? I'd suggest it's a desire not to see the inside of a courtroom where people could be deposed, but...

Either way, it's just another lie. Chalk up another one. Anyone have more chalk? I'm out.

Outta Chalk?

Just use the tip of a needle to inscribe it in the cobbles.

 

[scribe]

Wait...you're suggesting...that he wasn't entirely honest when he said "I don't need to do that anymore"?? That maybe, his lack of a lawsuit was motivated by...greed? I'd suggest it's a desire not to see the inside of a courtroom where people could be deposed, but...

Either way, it's just another lie. Chalk up another one. Anyone have more chalk? I'm out.

He says all kinds of things. I don't really believe he is done riding on the PT after this season either.

 

[kurtinsc]

Maybe this link will work (your link gave me issues too):


http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2010/07/wsj_to_spoil_lance_armstrongs.php#more

My workplace apparently is much better at blocking content then yours.

I think anything with the word "blog" in the URL isn't going to fly for me unfortunately.

Yet I can get away with posting on message boards. Not sure how that makes sense.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Wait...you're suggesting...that he wasn't entirely honest when he said "I don't need to do that anymore"?? That maybe, his lack of a lawsuit was motivated by...greed? I'd suggest it's a desire not to see the inside of a courtroom where people could be deposed, but...

Either way, it's just another lie. Chalk up another one. Anyone have more chalk? I'm out.

You can hire the 'Livestrong' chalkbot...

 

[Barrus]

Case against what?

Look, if there's any chance of witnesses who have knowledge of the team's activities being deposed and called to the stand, you have a 100% lock that Armstrong won't sue.

A case for Libel, slander or defamation, as scribe mentioned. I myself stated that he has no chance of winning such a case if he brought it to court, based on legal grounds, which are yet to be adressed to by scribe, and stated that it would be unlikely for him to bring this case against the WSJ. I agree with you there is almost no chance of him doing this

 

[scribe]

When you put it that way, it clearly qualifies for "tabloid" status.

Yes. You should also definitely tune into Fox News for a fair and balanced point of view.

 

[scribe]

A case for Libel, slander or defamation, as scribe mentioned. I myself stated that he has no chance of winning such a case if he brought it to court, based on legal grounds, which are yet to be adressed to by scribe, and stated that it would be unlikely for him to bring this case against the WSJ. I agree with you there is almost no chance of him doing this

Especially if it is just a water-downed rehash of past news stories.

 

[Anonymous]

These things normally get settled. If you have sufficient cause so as to not get netted up frivolous suit problems, it will likely lead to a significant settlement, which has all the appearances of a victory.

Really? You think the WSJ, with its deep, deep pockets are scared of taking a lawsuit from Mr Armstrong to the mat based on his assertion that they caused him injury for printing a story with corroborated content? On top of that, they can print statements from Floyd if they want regardless of the content without taking a hit because, so long as they don't print additional content (that would have to be knowingly false-sorry, but you and I both know that they wouldn't do that-), they would not be liable for Mr Landis' statement. Mr Landis would, and I think that Mr Armstrong would then again have to have the burden of proof in any civil trial, and lets face it, if someone said he slept with wh0res, it wouldn't be that hard to provide evidence he did. Then again, we don't even know that the article says anything about that, but if it does, I can assure you that it will be corroborated.

 

[alberto.legstrong]

A source, particularly ones around a so-called drugs scene, can be rather easy to pick apart regarding credibility.

Of course, keep in mind that we ARE jumping the gun on all this. Although guys in the know regarding the article, also spilled the beans on the sex, drugs, and r&r. Can't wait to see how the story was vetted at headquarters.

Agree that we are jumping the gun, but why let that get in the way of the fun? This is a great way to be lazy while at work on a Friday before a holiday.

 

[luckyboy]

Can anyone give an update/link? I don't feel like trawling through the last 40 or so pages if most of them are gonna be arguing/trolling.

 

[Cobblestones]

Really? You think the WSJ, with its deep, deep pockets are scared of taking a lawsuit from Mr Armstrong to the mat based on his assertion that they caused him injury for printing a story with corroborated content? On top of that, they can print statements from Floyd if they want regardless of the content without taking a hit because, so long as they don't print additional content (that would have to be knowingly false-sorry, but you and I both know that they wouldn't do that-), they would not be liable for Mr Landis' statement. Mr Landis would, and I think that Mr Armstrong would then again have to have the burden of proof in any civil trial, and lets face it, if someone said he slept with wh0res, it wouldn't be that hard to provide evidence he did. Then again, we don't even know that the article says anything about that, but if it does, I can assure you that it will be corroborated.

+1

Anyway, even if it's corroborated, I don't think they would put stuff in there about hooker and blow. It would take away focus from the main story which is doping.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Especially if it is just a water-downed rehash of past news stories.

Again - this is the point (& I would hazard a guess why the LA supporters are mightily worried).

It will not be its content - I expect most of what comes out to be 'old news' to the good residents of the Clinic. However this information has never gained traction in the Main Stream Media - until now.

Lance will probably never serve a sporting suspension or do any 'time' (unless he lies to the Feds- a possibility) but his legacy is crumbling bit by bit........ its over, he is gone.

 

[Barrus]

Can anyone give an update/link? I don't feel like trawling through the last 40 or so pages if most of them are gonna be arguing/trolling.

The WSJ article will be out tomorrow, not much more has happened