UCI, McQuaid & Verbruggen in lawsuit against Landis

[Dr. Maserati]

The article says what it says. Floyd's already talked about deposing people--that's a vigorous defense. The term "vigorous defense" is used by the reporter--not just the editor. I'm not lying! Floyd really did say he's going to fight this! He said that the UCI's suit "will strengthen my resolve to expose them as the criminals they are." (From Mr. Pelkey's article).

Read Mr. Pelkey's article and form your own opinion. Don't stop just at the headline.

So in short - Floyd never used the words "vigorous defense". Thanks.

 

[Berzin]

MarkvW-you truly are boring with your Landis obsession and the McQuaid/Verbruggen lawsuit.

This lawsuit means nothing, and your opinion of it means nothing.

You're just grasping at straws to make the guilty parties you come on here to represent as an ad hoc litigator seem as if they aren't the targets of a much wider probe, which happens to be a much more important investigation than any that has taken place in cycling.

Landis and his credibility-the fact that you keep beating that one topic to death makes you look petty, vindictive and small-minded.

But I guess the attention is really making you happy, isn't it?

 

[MacRoadie]

Thank God I'm not a Floyd "fanboy" (although I'm probably one of the very few people on here to have actually met the guy and done multiple training rides with him) as that (hopefully) means I'm still gainfully employed.

I'm of half a mind to offer to contribute to any new defense fund he may establish (although I didn't send a single cent to the first one). Not so much to see him mount a "vigorous defense", but to do it just to **** off a few people on here.

As for his potential legal team, one word... Labor!

 

[Race Radio]

Thank God I'm not a Floyd "fanboy" (although I'm probably one of the very few people on here to have actually met the guy and done multiple training rides with him) as that (hopefully) means I'm still gainfully employed.

I'm of half a mind to offer to contribute to any new defense fund he may establish (although I didn't send a single cent to the first one). Not so much to see him mount a "vigorous defense", but to do it just to **** off a few people on here.

As for his potential legal team, one word... Labor!

Maxcashagro!

 

[Anonymous]

Thank God I'm not a Floyd "fanboy" (although I'm probably one of the very few people on here to have actually met the guy and done multiple training rides with him) as that (hopefully) means I'm still gainfully employed.

I'm of half a mind to offer to contribute to any new defense fund he may establish (although I didn't send a single cent to the first one). Not so much to see him mount a "vigorous defense", but to do it just to **** off a few people on here.

As for his potential legal team, one word... Labor!

HeHeHeHe....

 

[MacRoadie]

Max Kash Agro and the Hawk!

Have a nice cold Captain Nimrod's with Floyd and the boyz...

 

[MarkvW]

well . . .

MarkvW-you truly are boring with your Landis obsession and the McQuaid/Verbruggen lawsuit.

This lawsuit means nothing, and your opinion of it means nothing.

You're just grasping at straws to make the guilty parties you come on here to represent as an ad hoc litigator seem as if they aren't the targets of a much wider probe, which happens to be a much more important investigation than any that has taken place in cycling.

Landis and his credibility-the fact that you keep beating that one topic to death makes you look petty, vindictive and small-minded.

But I guess the attention is really making you happy, isn't it?

It's not just his crediblity. People are actually arguing that Landis is going to go off to Switzerland and slay the UCI dragon. It is fun to argue against that. That's only going to happen if sugar daddies pay the full freight. People are also arguing that this case is going to end even if Floyd doesn't appear and participate. That's not going to happen unless McQuaid loses his grip on the UCI.

Then there's the eternal unstated Lance subtext. For several antagonists, it's all about Lance, all the time. All posts are processed through the for lance/against lance filter. Certain arguments are bound to send them stratospheric. The "much wider investigation" that you talk about (code language for all Lance--all the time) may or may not bear fruit. Nothing we say here is going to affect it one way or the other.

 

[Anonymous]

Max Kash Agro and the Hawk!

Have a nice cold Captain Nimrod's with Floyd and the boyz...

Maybe Max Kash Agro can pick up Chade O. Grey's tab to run over to Switzeland to face up to the playground bully.

No wonder Floyd's happy... a coupla Captain Nimrod's and I'd be happy too.

...."for whom a good brew is a decent substitute for bad sex...."

That's too good.

 

[powerste]

It's not just his crediblity. People are actually arguing that Landis is going to go off to Switzerland and slay the UCI dragon. It is fun to argue against that. That's only going to happen if sugar daddies pay the full freight. People are also arguing that this case is going to end even if Floyd doesn't appear and participate. That's not going to happen unless McQuaid loses his grip on the UCI.

Well for starters, the "case" is still nothing but a press release. No process served to FL, no reports of actual Swiss court proceedings, etc. A press release announcing a lawsuit isn't a lawsuit - it's a threat.

Secondly, we've both read and posted something to the effect that there's no arrangement between US and CH (or between the US and any country for that matter) supporting enforcement in the US of civil judgments delivered outside the US. So yes, if the case actually starts, it will eventually end, with or without FL's active involvement. And were FL's non-participation to result in a default judgment against him, he might lose his Swiss assets and be unable to visit Switzerland...big bummer for him, I'm sure.

 

[MarkvW]

Well for starters, the "case" is still nothing but a press release. No process served to FL, no reports of actual Swiss court proceedings, etc. A press release announcing a lawsuit isn't a lawsuit - it's a threat.

Secondly, we've both read and posted something to the effect that there's no arrangement between US and CH (or between the US and any country for that matter) supporting enforcement in the US of civil judgments delivered outside the US. So yes, if the case actually starts, it will eventually end, with or without FL's active involvement. And were FL's non-participation to result in a default judgment against him, he might lose his Swiss assets and be unable to visit Switzerland...big bummer for him, I'm sure.

First: Velonews reports that the UCI says the case has been filed. It is unreasonable to believe this is only a threat.

Second: Many STATES have laws that permit the enforcement of foreign countrymoney judgments. There are defenses! Some good ones! But simply saying that a foreign judgment is unenforceable in the US is blatantly false.

 

[D-Queued]

If McQuaid and these boneheads are going to file this suit, then they should just file any suit against anyone who has doped. In essence, they are defaming the UCI and the sport with positive test results which the general public has now become to associate doping/cycling as non-mutually exclusive.

Exactly.

Every time they announce that there is no doping in cycling or that cycling is the cleanest of all sports, some moron goes and tests positive.

It just ruins the whole 'your doping donations accepted here campaign'.

Dave.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

First: Velonews reports that the UCI says the case has been filed. It is unreasonable to believe this is only a threat.

Velonews took that from the original press release from the UCI - who said they 'lodged' a suit.

I think whats unreasonable is for the UCI to take it all the way - even you admitted that "it doesn't make any sense for either side" earlier on.

Second: Many STATES have laws that permit the enforcement of foreign countrymoney judgments. There are defenses! Some good ones! But simply saying that a foreign judgment is unenforceable in the US is blatantly false.

I think I would trust this article (from Velonews, I know you like them) over what you are proposing.

At this point, when it comes to Landis, I doubt that it will amount to that. I doubt he has many assets in Switzerland. He really has little need or reason to travel there and the long arm of Swiss law ain’t long enough to reach here.

As one attorney looking at the case noted, “it looks like a PR move on the part of the UCI, one where they pull out all of their resources to try and shut someone up. I doubt it will go anywhere, though.”

 

[flicker]

Wouldn't it be funny if a bear liked honey.

Well for starters, the "case" is still nothing but a press release. No process served to FL, no reports of actual Swiss court proceedings, etc. A press release announcing a lawsuit isn't a lawsuit - it's a threat.

Secondly, we've both read and posted something to the effect that there's no arrangement between US and CH (or between the US and any country for that matter) supporting enforcement in the US of civil judgments delivered outside the US. So yes, if the case actually starts, it will eventually end, with or without FL's active involvement. And were FL's non-participation to result in a default judgment against him, he might lose his Swiss assets and be unable to visit Switzerland...big bummer for him, I'm sure.

Wouldn't it be funny if Floyd stashed a load of Floyd Fairness greenbacks in Zurich bank and couldn't get back there to get them.

 

[MarkvW]

Ufcmjra

I think I would trust this article (from Velonews, I know you like them) over what you are proposing.

Google "Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act." Or read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enforcement_of_foreign_judgments.

You'll become a believer, then!!

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Google "Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act." Or read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enforcement_of_foreign_judgments.

You'll become a believer, then!!

I did as you asked:

Enforcement of foreign judgments in the U.S.
If the time to appeal in the court of origin has lapsed, and the judgment has become final, the holder of a foreign judgment, decree or order may file suit before a competent court in the U.S. which will determine whether to give effect to the foreign judgment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enforcement_of_foreign_judgments

 

[MarkvW]

I did as you asked:

Enforcement of foreign judgments in the U.S.
If the time to appeal in the court of origin has lapsed, and the judgment has become final, the holder of a foreign judgment, decree or order may file suit before a competent court in the U.S. which will determine whether to give effect to the foreign judgment.

Yes . . . And your illustrious point?

I've already talked about domesticating foreign judgments in an earlier post.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Yes . . . And your illustrious point?

I've already talked about domesticating foreign judgments in an earlier post.

Well, you said I was going to become a 'believer' - the Wiki article is at best vague if not downright impossible to uphold.

So, no I don't believe the UCI will follow through and I'll stick with the articles view I linked earlier.

 

[powerste]

First: Velonews reports that the UCI says the case has been filed. It is unreasonable to believe this is only a threat.

Velonews cited the UCI's press release, not court documents, in their report. Wait - isn't that what I said...so far, the "case" is documented only in a press release? Why yes, it is what I said...imagine that!

My own personal opinion, based on observation, is that when "the UCI says," we should all reach for the shaker containing the coarsest grains of salt.

Second: Many STATES have laws that permit the enforcement of foreign countrymoney judgments.

So you're claiming that individual US states have negotiated legal contracts with foreign countries? To do so would require the consent of Congress per the Contract Clause of the US Constitution. I'm not saying it can't be done, but your rebuttal is lacking documented examples.

But simply saying that a foreign judgment is unenforceable in the US is blatantly false.

I didn't say that originally - I cited Charles Pelkey saying it. I have no reason to dispute it since no one's pointed out examples of US jurisdictions (e.g., states) in which foreign civil judgments have actually been enforced.

 

[mmedeast]

Ponying up to help Floyd depends upon your own assessment of Floyd's commitment to turn the lawsuit into a glorious cause celebre. Will Floyd betray contributors if it is in his own interest?

The clean riders don't have any evidence that would help Floyd. It's the eternal problem of prosecuting dope dealers--you need dopeheads to do it. If a clean rider COULD do it, one (LeMond?) would have done it by now. If you're reading Floyds postings now, he's got to be persona non grata with the bulk of the peleton. Floyd needs allies, not more enemies.

Actually I think you are incorrect. The clean riders may very well have evidence to help Floyd, particularly if it is first hand experience in what they have seen. Sure it can be twisted around by a lawyer, but can you honestly tell me that if a clean rider comes into court and says "On my team (fill in the blank) during this time (fill in the blank) I saw this rider (fill in the blank) use what looked to me like this (fill in the blank) drug" that wouldn't help him? What if the clean rider comes in and says "The reason I left this team, was because I was told that in order to win I had to use drugs and I didn't want to."
I understand that it would be fought against, but even just one such person on the stand all of the sudden lends credibility to Floyd.

Flicker - I believe Floyd has far more than 90 fans and that none of them are gainfully employed. Interesting that some of the first people who manage to get quotes out of Floyd are people like Neil Browne and Bonnie Ford. Yeah, they aren't gainfully employed by anyone big enough to make a splash.

Oh and I couldn't answer right away because I was busy actually working.

 

[MarkvW]

Well, you said I was going to become a 'believer' - the Wiki article is at best vague if not downright impossible to uphold.

So, no I don't believe the UCI will follow through and I'll stick with the articles view I linked earlier.

Downright impossible? Never underestimate the power of inventive lawyers!

How about this (from Nadd v. Le Credit Lyonnais, S.A., 804 So.2d 1226
Fla.,2001):

"See Laager v. Kruger, 702 So.2d 1362 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (Swiss judgment creditor sought to enforce a Cayman judgment against another Swiss citizen in Florida where the Cayman judgment was partially based on Swiss judgments previously recognized in Florida; the appeals court determined the Cayman judgment should have been recognized by trial court); Frymer v. Brettschneider, 696 So.2d 1266 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (when decedent's daughter and her children sought to have a settlement agreement with decedent's widow declared void, widow counterclaimed seeking enforcement of a 1991 Canadian cost judgment; the appeals court affirmed trial court's decision that beneficiaries' suit was time barred under section 95.11)."

Do you need more to convince you that it's not "downright impossible" or is your belief system irretrievably fixed?

 

[powerste]

Google "Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act." Or read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enforcement_of_foreign_judgments.

You'll become a believer, then!!

Thanks for the link. I'm a believer in this part (even if it did come from wikipedia):

Exceptions

A state may not enforce a foreign-country judgment in the following cases:

* The judgment was not rendered by an impartial tribunals under procedures compatible with the requirements of due process of law;
* The foreign court did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant;
* . . .

Also, FWIW you need to be very careful with that article since it differentiates early on between "foreign-country" and "sister-state" (i.e., another US state) judgments but then goes on to discuss the latter almost exclusively. Don't get confused about California enforcing (or not) judgments from Oregon vs. California enforcing (or not) judgments from Switzerland. The legal definition of "foreign" is not nearly as clear as you make it out to be.

 

[MarkvW]

Right

Thanks for the link. I'm a believer in this part (even if it did come from wikipedia):


Also, FWIW you need to be very careful with that article since it differentiates early on between "foreign-country" and "sister-state" (i.e., another US state) judgments but then goes on to discuss the latter almost exclusively. Don't get confused about California enforcing (or not) judgments from Oregon vs. California enforcing (or not) judgments from Switzerland. The legal definition of "foreign" is not nearly as clear as you make it out to be.

You're absolutely right about that. But think about it this way: If the UCI convinces one state court to domesticate the judgment against Landis, all other courts in the United States have to give Full Faith and Credit to that decision.

Still, I think Floyd has a really good handicap defense. He's poor, he can't speak French, and he's thousands of miles away. If the UCI brute forces Floyd in Switzerland, they'll have the dickens of a time domesticating their judgment. My bet is they'll get their default Swiss verdict, declare victory, and leave it at that.

 

[powerste]

You're absolutely right about that. But think about it this way: If the UCI convinces one state court to domesticate the judgment against Landis, all other courts in the United States have to give Full Faith and Credit to that decision.

Still, I think Floyd has a really good handicap defense. He's poor, he can't speak French, and he's thousands of miles away. If the UCI brute forces Floyd in Switzerland, they'll have the dickens of a time domesticating their judgment. My bet is they'll get their default Swiss verdict, declare victory, and leave it at that.

On that we can definitely agree...if the lawsuit actually progresses and FL defaults (both still big ifs IMHO). There's no point in them wasting more time and money trying to drive foreign-country enforcement against a defendant who can't pay them anyway.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Downright impossible? Never underestimate the power of inventive lawyers!

How about this (from Nadd v. Le Credit Lyonnais, S.A., 804 So.2d 1226
Fla.,2001):

"See Laager v. Kruger, 702 So.2d 1362 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (Swiss judgment creditor sought to enforce a Cayman judgment against another Swiss citizen in Florida where the Cayman judgment was partially based on Swiss judgments previously recognized in Florida; the appeals court determined the Cayman judgment should have been recognized by trial court); Frymer v. Brettschneider, 696 So.2d 1266 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (when decedent's daughter and her children sought to have a settlement agreement with decedent's widow declared void, widow counterclaimed seeking enforcement of a 1991 Canadian cost judgment; the appeals court affirmed trial court's decision that beneficiaries' suit was time barred under section 95.11)."

Do you need more to convince you that it's not "downright impossible" or is your belief system irretrievably fixed?

I have highlighted the problem with your piece.

No, you don't need to convince me - because even if you did, I stand by my original point that even if the State of California had some brilliant treaty with Switzerland based on defamation laws the UCI will not see this case to its conclusion.

This is nothing more than an attempt to gag Landis from making comments about them.

Also - do not misrepresent what I say, I clearly stated that it would be "at best vague if not downright impossible".

 

[flicker]

Actually I think you are incorrect. The clean riders may very well have evidence to help Floyd, particularly if it is first hand experience in what they have seen. Sure it can be twisted around by a lawyer, but can you honestly tell me that if a clean rider comes into court and says "On my team (fill in the blank) during this time (fill in the blank) I saw this rider (fill in the blank) use what looked to me like this (fill in the blank) drug" that wouldn't help him? What if the clean rider comes in and says "The reason I left this team, was because I was told that in order to win I had to use drugs and I didn't want to."
I understand that it would be fought against, but even just one such person on the stand all of the sudden lends credibility to Floyd.

Flicker - I believe Floyd has far more than 90 fans and that none of them are gainfully employed. Interesting that some of the first people who manage to get quotes out of Floyd are people like Neil Browne and Bonnie Ford. Yeah, they aren't gainfully employed by anyone big enough to make a splash.

Oh and I couldn't answer right away because I was busy actually working.

In a perfect world pro riders past and present would come forward and stand by Floyd. Personal experience, every rider I know followed his medication orders,as part of the job requirement you follow your supervisors orders,(I do not know if that is in the contract cyclists sign) however that, what do they call it systemized doping is an understanding. Outside our small circle of friends, nothing was ever said, except vitamen shots, extra minerals, flaxseed oil, etc.
As for Floyd,back when I worked I kicked him a nice donation. Now, if I had the means to help him I wouldn't.
Floyd fooled me once, shame on him, if he fooled me twice shame on me.