UCI, McQuaid & Verbruggen in lawsuit against Landis

[fatandfast]

Exactly. Whether the UCI accepted bribes or not is the issue. Just like the Festina trials a lot of stuff comes out in the open. We all know there was mass doping from 1999-2006. If the UCI wants this out the open then good for them but why not set up a forum to do so rather than having people fess up under the pressure of the oath in a court room. No winners in this game. Its all dirty stuff but I just can’t see it playing out. The UCI wants this for show. But even now its back fired. Floyd has simply retorted – “fine, I’ll tell the truth if that’s what you want”. The last thing the UCI want is the truth coming out and the last thing the UCI want to come out is that the entire peloton was using between 99-06 – some more than others but drugs were the central theme. There are those in the public who think doping was the game of a few not everyone - it kills the "never tested positive" belief that some hold on to...

Barrus brings out lots of points. Angelina and Brad amongst others have brought lawsuits against tabloids/TV shows that say something they find damaging. They get paid. I find it hard to believe that from his Idylwild think tank cabin, Landis is going to compel a judge or company(UCI) to do anything.
Landis doing an audit on the UCI is remote

The DHL/Fedex bills alone for the discovery process will pi$$ away any cash Landis has on hand or can raise by another one of his phony fund raisers. Landis made statements that he(I) believes to be true. Took bribes, probably, different standards for different riders and teams, for sure. None of this can be proven in court.
Half of the policies and rules that the UCI hand out are totally subjective and are designed for so much personal opinion. If the board of directors leave the leadership in place after taking 100's of 1000's from Armstrong and others it is going to hard to follow there methods

Landis is a victim of thinking he can say whatever he wants, it's not true everywhere. The teaspoon of cred and self respect Landis has can be preserved if he doesn't subject himself to another public battle. If he has super bad luck, Lance will get pinched by the US feds and Landis will be defending himself and his public BS in 2 or 3 courtrooms all over the place. Unless he has some money that he is holing away this will be the death nail in whatever life he has left.

I pray that Landis doesn't listen to your point of view about "never tested positive" approach. He can prove that Armstrong used drugs easier than the flight path of UFO's near his house but both will be looked at the same when he takes the stand. This is a PR stunt from McQuaid, if Landis comes to court as he has so far,McQuaid will be declared the victor. Not because he is not a shmuck, but because Landis is unprepared. Landis's wad is shot, nothing of value to tell, only names.

Landis whatever you do, don't fly through France, they want you for hacking and dodging warrants. If you go, go to Switzerland and go home. Fly in and out of Ontario so you don't get arrested anywhere else

 

[Granville57]

Landis's wad is shot, nothing of value to tell, only names.

But that's just an assumption. We really don't know what other evidence he may have.

In the end, what does the UCI hope to achieve here?

Any Landis press is bad for the sport. Floyd has proven time and time again that's he up for the fight, and that he will not go quietly. The UCI has never dealt with the likes of Floyd before. He's willing to go down in flames. Are they?

 

[Hawkwood]

Here in the UK if you're famous and win a libel case you can be awarded millions in damages, plus have your legal expenses paid for. However there are strict rules as to how the damages can be recooped. One person I met years ago was found guilty of libel and was required to pay the other party damages/costs running into millions, however with some careful financial management he has never repaid anything. As such cases in the UK are civil those found guilty cannot be imprisoned. I gather that the UK is favoured for libel cases as it's one place where the injured party can make some real money, however with poor legal advice it can also go seriously wrong.

I've had a quick look at a site that gives some details of how such cases are dealt with in Switzerland, it mentions quite low fines (3000 Swiss Francs I think) or short jail terms, is this correct? And can Swiss courts also impose damages?

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

It would have been much easier to have just said 'I'm afraid I don't know any Swiss examples, but the Brussels convention which regulates civil disputes between residents of (different) EU and EFTA states applies to Switzerland.' And you know, maybe explained how the Brussels convention operates as this is the key element in how and why PM and HV think they are able to launch a case in Switzerland for comments made outside Switzerland. Rather than trying to show everyone how macho you are - it would have helped illuminate the discussion and informed posters who are less familiar with European law.

You quoted lots of cases but at no point did you link into the Brussels convention, nor did you highlight under what context this would apply in the Landis case. Nor indeed have you addressed the issue of the question as to whether it applies to Landis since unlike the cited examples he is not a resident of an EU or EFTA state.

http://www.jus.uio.no/lm/brussels.j...d.commercial.matters.convention.1968/doc.html

For example lets look at Article 4:

Article 4

If the defendant is not domiciled in a Contracting State, the jurisdiction of the courts of each Contracting State shall, subject to the provisions of Article 16, be determined by the law of that State.

As against such a defendant, any person domiciled in a Contracting State may, whatever his nationality, avail himself in that State of the rules of jurisdiction there in force, and in particular those specified in the second paragraph of Article 3, in the same way as the nationals of that State.

So lets look at Article 16 and whether it applies to Landis.

Article 16

The following courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction, regardless of domicile:

(1) in proceedings which have as their object rights in rem in, or tenancies of, immovable property, the courts of the Contracting State in which the property is situated;


(2) in proceedings which have as their object the validity of the constitution, the nullity or the dissolution of companies or other legal persons or associations of natural or legal persons, or the decision of their organs, the courts of the Contracting State in which the company, legal person or association has its seat;


(3) in proceedings which have as their object the validity of entries in public registers, the courts of the Contracting State in which the register is kept;


(4) in proceedings concerned with the registration or validity of patents, trade marks, designs, or other similar rights required to be deposited or registered, the courts of the Contracting State in which the deposit or registration has been applied for, has taken place or is under the terms of an international convention deemed to have taken place;


(5) in proceedings concerned with the enforcement of judgements, the courts of the Contracting State in which the judgement has been or is to be enforced.

####

Now, my reading is that this means the provisions used to sue across countries in the cases you cited may not apply in this case.

Back to the cases you cited. At no point did you highlight that the key element in the Shevill case is that it is where the 'harmful event' takes place not where it is spoken/written. So hence Shevill could sue France Soir because they 103 copies were sold in Yorkshire - the harmful event took place in Yorkshire. Thus she was able to use the english courts (under the Brussels convention) to launch a libel action against a French magazine. But that this was a case between two members of the EU.

If this precedent applies then PM and HV have to demonstrate is that the Landis' allegations were reproduced in Switzerland - and that they were injured there. (Which then begs the question why are they not suing the media outlets who reproduced the comments in Switzerland?). And assuming that Landis as a non-resident in the EU/EFTA is subject to it.

And then into that assuming that PM and HV can sue FL - there is the question of how the case sits within Swiss libel law and whether Landis can claim any of the defences offered.

Of course, if you read it differently to me then I would be interested to hear your interpretation but please spare me the machismo as it is very tedious and boring.

 

[D-Queued]

But that's just an assumption. We really don't know what other evidence he may have.

In the end, what does the UCI hope to achieve here?

Any Landis press is bad for the sport. Floyd has proven time and time again that's he up for the fight, and that he will not go quietly. The UCI has never dealt with the likes of Floyd before. He's willing to go down in flames. Are they?

And that is the question.

While I appreciated the candor and Landis' observations, I was concerned about the irritate the UCI approach. Presumably the Novitzky investigation will verify Landis' allegations and bring them to light.

If you are angry at the UCI, letting justice be served seems the ultimate retribution.

Of course, Landis did not go full *** there. But, the UCI has.

The UCI's public record is deplorable, with no end of conflicting statements and actions, let alone outright facilitation. The WADA observer's report from last year's Tour being yet one small drop of data in the sea of impropriety.

Rather than cite instances, we can just start with the fact that WADA - sport's policing organization for doping - exists because of the UCI. Nothing more need be said.

This action appears to be a clear case of vanity overcoming rational thought.

If you make your bed, sometimes you have to sleep in it.

Independent of how Swiss law functions, it is hard to imagine that more damaging informaiton would not come to light. Floyd can likely call witnesses for his defense. Presumably he alone does not need to be the only one with an opportunity to testify.

Moreover, introducing evidence from past Tour winners like Greg LeMond, who publicly claimed that "The Spanish scandal is another example, the entire system is corrupt, the UCI is corrupt", not only establishes the UCI's reputation within professional cycling, but corroborates any allegation Landis has made.

Dave.

 

[flicker]

Floyds' best move is to write an apology to the UCI, cycling and whomever elses' name he has dragged through the mud. Standing in front of a magistrate in Zurich with his pockets turned inside out, listening to a deposition in Swiss, with the owner of Phonak sitting in the audience wouldn't be a pretty picture for Floyd. He will be made to run the gauntlet, already he is trying to blackmail a court case by threatening to name names. I don't think Floyd is scaring anyone at this point. A no win situation for Floyd, and I agree with Levi, "What was Floyd thinkin."

 

[flicker]

And that is the question.

While I appreciated the candor and Landis' observations, I was concerned about the irritate the UCI approach. Presumably the Novitzky investigation will verify Landis' allegations and bring them to light.

If you are angry at the UCI, letting justice be served seems the ultimate retribution.

Of course, Landis did not go full *** there. But, the UCI has.

The UCI's public record is deplorable, with no end of conflicting statements and actions, let alone outright facilitation. The WADA observer's report from last year's Tour being yet one small drop of data in the sea of impropriety.

Rather than cite instances, we can just start with the fact that WADA - sport's policing organization for doping - exists because of the UCI. Nothing more need be said.

This action appears to be a clear case of vanity overcoming rational thought.

If you make your bed, sometimes you have to sleep in it.

Independent of how Swiss law functions, it is hard to imagine that more damaging informaiton would not come to light. Floyd can likely call witnesses for his defense. Presumably he alone does not need to be the only one with an opportunity to testify.

Moreover, introducing evidence from past Tour winners like Greg LeMond, who publicly claimed that "The Spanish scandal is another example, the entire system is corrupt, the UCI is corrupt", not only establishes the UCI's reputation within professional cycling, but corroborates any allegation Landis has made.

Dave.

Dave,
While your argument is articulate and well thought out it is not the UCI, or a Spanish scandal who is on trial here. Greg LeMond will not be asked to testify for or against any accusations here. Time for a little levity and reality here.

 

[Barrus]

It would have been much easier to have just said 'I'm afraid I don't know any Swiss examples, but the Brussels convention which regulates civil disputes between residents of (different) EU and EFTA states applies to Switzerland.' And you know, maybe explained how the Brussels convention operates as this is the key element in how and why PM and HV think they are able to launch a case in Switzerland for comments made outside Switzerland. Rather than trying to show everyone how macho you are - it would have helped illuminate the discussion and informed posters who are less familiar with European law.

You quoted lots of cases but at no point did you link into the Brussels convention, nor did you highlight under what context this would apply in the Landis case. Nor indeed have you addressed the issue of the question as to whether it applies to Landis since unlike the cited examples he is not a resident of an EU or EFTA state.

http://www.jus.uio.no/lm/brussels.j...d.commercial.matters.convention.1968/doc.html

For example lets look at Article 4:



So lets look at Article 16 and whether it applies to Landis.



####

Now, my reading is that this means the provisions used to sue across countries in the cases you cited may not apply in this case.

Back to the cases you cited. At no point did you highlight that the key element in the Shevill case is that it is where the 'harmful event' takes place not where it is spoken/written. So hence Shevill could sue France Soir because they 103 copies were sold in Yorkshire - the harmful event took place in Yorkshire. Thus she was able to use the english courts (under the Brussels convention) to launch a libel action against a French magazine. But that this was a case between two members of the EU.

If this precedent applies then PM and HV have to demonstrate is that the Landis' allegations were reproduced in Switzerland - and that they were injured there. (Which then begs the question why are they not suing the media outlets who reproduced the comments in Switzerland?). And assuming that Landis as a non-resident in the EU/EFTA is subject to it.

And then into that assuming that PM and HV can sue FL - there is the question of how the case sits within Swiss libel law and whether Landis can claim any of the defences offered.

Of course, if you read it differently to me then I would be interested to hear your interpretation but please spare me the machismo as it is very tedious and boring.

I'm sorry, but I've tried time and time again to give complete legal reasonings on here and I have yet had anyone really read those and understand those, so I have given up the effort of doing so. Thus I only referenced cases, since that was all that you asked. It is very tedious and boring to try and explain these things to people who do not try to understand it, nor do they try to do their own research

In the case of the internet, as I said previously, in most states it is so that if content is available in the state of question it counts as being reproduced there. Switzerland follows the general tenet that the place where the damage occurs is a state where action can occur, Shevill is one of the most prudent precedents that deal with international publications.

 

[Hawkwood]

Floyds' best move is to write an apology to the UCI, cycling and whomever elses' name he has dragged through the mud. Standing in front of a magistrate in Zurich with his pockets turned inside out, listening to a deposition in Swiss, with the owner of Phonak sitting in the audience wouldn't be a pretty picture for Floyd. He will be made to run the gauntlet, already he is trying to blackmail a court case by threatening to name names. I don't think Floyd is scaring anyone at this point. A no win situation for Floyd, and I agree with Levi, "What was Floyd thinkin."

But why would he even want to go to Switzerland? Not turning up would give a victory of sorts to the UCI, great a Swiss based organisation wins a libel case in a Swiss court and recovers nothing in damages/expenses. However surely a Swiss libel case is trumped by a US fraud one brought by the Feds?

 

[thehog]

Floyds' best move is to write an apology to the UCI, cycling and whomever elses' name he has dragged through the mud. Standing in front of a magistrate in Zurich with his pockets turned inside out, listening to a deposition in Swiss, with the owner of Phonak sitting in the audience wouldn't be a pretty picture for Floyd. He will be made to run the gauntlet, already he is trying to blackmail a court case by threatening to name names. I don't think Floyd is scaring anyone at this point. A no win situation for Floyd, and I agree with Levi, "What was Floyd thinkin."

What language is Swiss? Sorry but Swiss is not a language my friend and they don't speak "Swiss" in Swizterland. Showing you're vast global knowledge I see! lol!

 

[fatandfast]

And that is the question.

While I appreciated the candor and Landis' observations, I was concerned about the irritate the UCI approach. Presumably the Novitzky investigation will verify Landis' allegations and bring them to light.

If you are angry at the UCI, letting justice be served seems the ultimate retribution.

Of course, Landis did not go full *** there. But, the UCI has.

The UCI's public record is deplorable, with no end of conflicting statements and actions, let alone outright facilitation. The WADA observer's report from last year's Tour being yet one small drop of data in the sea of impropriety.

Rather than cite instances, we can just start with the fact that WADA - sport's policing organization for doping - exists because of the UCI. Nothing more need be said.

This action appears to be a clear case of vanity overcoming rational thought.

If you make your bed, sometimes you have to sleep in it.

Independent of how Swiss law functions, it is hard to imagine that more damaging informaiton would not come to light. Floyd can likely call witnesses for his defense. Presumably he alone does not need to be the only one with an opportunity to testify.

Moreover, introducing evidence from past Tour winners like Greg LeMond, who publicly claimed that "The Spanish scandal is another example, the entire system is corrupt, the UCI is corrupt", not only establishes the UCI's reputation within professional cycling, but corroborates any allegation Landis has made.

Dave.

so Landis's defense will be to say, I said this and that about McQuaid and the UCI and Greg is here to back me up?. Not all past tour winners are in such a hurry to help Landis do anything. The fact that the UCI does stupid things after a rider is caught will hardly help Landis. That is mismanagement not corruption. It has been that way for decades, before these two started suing Landis.
The crazy way the UCI is run as a company may be hard to impossible to understand, but Landis should let somebody else take on cracking the codes of their business practices.

I hope Landis can pay payments on his judgement. He may want to get advise from some of the people who have tried to sue the IRS

 

[D-Queued]

Floyds' best move is to write an apology to the UCI, cycling and whomever elses' name he has dragged through the mud. Standing in front of a magistrate in Zurich with his pockets turned inside out, listening to a deposition in Swiss, with the owner of Phonak sitting in the audience wouldn't be a pretty picture for Floyd. He will be made to run the gauntlet, already he is trying to blackmail a court case by threatening to name names. I don't think Floyd is scaring anyone at this point. A no win situation for Floyd, and I agree with Levi, "What was Floyd thinkin."

Not.

The overwhelming evidence is on Floyd's side.

From FT.com Cycling’s wheels of misfortune in 2006: “Pigs might fly,” said British rider David Millar this week. “This is a professional sport and, believe me, as long as money is involved in sport, doping will exist. And if you believe anything else, I’m afraid you’re a fool.”

Are you a fool? Will pigs fly?

How many times has Pat or Hein tried to state that doping doesn't exist, or is below detectability?

Don't forget that Hein VerDRUGgen refused to believe or investigate the possibility that Lance's doping control forms came from within the UCI.

Incompetence, collusion, or both? From Floyd's perspected, it doesn't matter.

Dave.

 

[flicker]

What language is Swiss? Sorry but Swiss is not a language my friend and they don't speak "Swiss" in Swizterland. Showing you're vast global knowledge I see! lol!

World"
I don't know, my friend who lived in Zurich said it was a mix up of a few different languages. Difficult to understand. But of course they will translate into whatever language Floyd understands. Maybe the language of 'Garth' in the epic film 'Waynes World"

 

[D-Queued]

so Landis's defense will be to say, I said this and that about McQuaid and the UCI and Greg is here to back me up?. Not all past tour winners are in such a hurry to help Landis do anything. The fact that the UCI does stupid things after a rider is caught will hardly help Landis. That is mismanagement not corruption. It has been that way for decades, before these two started suing Landis.
The crazy way the UCI is run as a company may be hard to impossible to understand, but Landis should let somebody else take on cracking the codes of their business practices.

I hope Landis can pay payments on his judgement. He may want to get advise from some of the people who have tried to sue the IRS

Landis can simply quote public statements from many other riders. Including, as just posted, the above statement from David Millar.

If the UCI has known incompetence with respect to doping (let alone collusion, protection, etc.), then how can anyone prove damages from Floyd's statements?

That is the point. What damages are there to a reputation that was so bad it precipitated the formation of WADA?

Actions like denying Lance's doping control forms came from within the organization.

The fact that the doping control forms came from within the UCI organization, yet the wonderous Vrijman investigation, funded by the organization, didn't even uncover this most basic and most important fact itself.

Has McQuaid yet provided a full accounting on the Lance donations?

Certain posters get pretty irate when someone re-affirms Kimmage's statement that Lance is a cancer on the sport. Yet, Lance called Festina a cancer on the sport. What further damage to the sport could Floyd have created?

Floyd is still a bit player in this theatre.

Dave.

 

[Hawkwood]

What language is Swiss? Sorry but Swiss is not a language my friend and they don't speak "Swiss" in Swizterland. Showing you're vast global knowledge I see! lol!

`Swizterland' appears to have crept in from somewhere as well! `Swiz' is British English slang for a swindle. So the land of the swindlers!

 

[D-Queued]

Dave,
While your argument is articulate and well thought out it is not the UCI, or a Spanish scandal who is on trial here. Greg LeMond will not be asked to testify for or against any accusations here. Time for a little levity and reality here.

He doesn't have to testify.

All Floyd has to provide in his defense are public statements from knoweldgeable, and famous people, like Greg LeMond, like David Millar, like D!ck Pound, like the WADA Observer's report, etc., etc.

Floyd can copy the technique of the Vrijman Report and simply cite news articles. Just like the Vrijman Report, no real investigation or real testimony need be provided.

Defense exhibit #1: Vrijman Report

Dave.

 

[thehog]

World"
I don't know, my friend who lived in Zurich said it was a mix up of a few different languages. Difficult to understand. But of course they will translate into whatever language Floyd understands. Maybe the language of 'Garth' in the epic film 'Waynes World"

The knife cuts deep. You're showing your stupidity. Poor return of serve I might add.

You're not so smart after all.

For the record its not a mix up of anything.

 

[flicker]

What language is Swiss? Sorry but Swiss is not a language my friend and they don't speak "Swiss" in Swizterland. Showing you're vast global knowledge I see! lol!

Sorry, my friend is talking the language, Swiss- German or Romansh.
Of course Floyd being Pennsylvania Dutch might understand it perfectly.

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

 

[flicker]

Not.

The overwhelming evidence is on Floyd's side.

From FT.com Cycling’s wheels of misfortune in 2006: “Pigs might fly,” said British rider David Millar this week. “This is a professional sport and, believe me, as long as money is involved in sport, doping will exist. And if you believe anything else, I’m afraid you’re a fool.”

Are you a fool? Will pigs fly?

How many times has Pat or Hein tried to state that doping doesn't exist, or is below detectability?

Don't forget that Hein VerDRUGgen refused to believe or investigate the possibility that Lance's doping control forms came from within the UCI.

Incompetence, collusion, or both? From Floyd's perspected, it doesn't matter.

Dave.

Typically blackmail, or trying to put the legal or the political system on trial
is unsuccessful in a court of law.
Or to put it another way for Floyd would he rather have Hope or Sh-- in his hand?

 

[thehog]

Sorry, my friend is talking the language, Swiss- German or Romansh.
Of course Floyd being Pennsylvania Dutch might understand it perfectly.

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

Oh dear.... its German. Its French and its Italian.

Every country has dialects but there's no such thing as Swiss per your brilliant original post (lol!).

Again very poor return of serve.

New Poll – Who’s smarter? Floyd or flicker? (I know how I’d vote.)

 

[MarkvW]

shevill

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=6478523

Within the European Union, see the Shevill case

Within Australia see the Dow Jones case, more precisely: Gutnick v Dow Jones & Co. Inc

UK: Berezovsky v Michaels, Harrods v. Dow Jones

For Switzerland, it will take a little more time to find the appropriate case law, due to my terrible French and German, but I'll probably get back to you on that later today

Thanks so much for the references. I think I get the "cycling" reference that the UCI makes. They're arguing that Floyd purposely projected himself worldwide when he made his statements. That, they seem to maintain, is enough of a contact to support Swiss jurisdiction (the situs of the International cycling federation).

It doesn't look like a clear-cut issue (at very first glance).

I assume Floyd can fight the jurisdiction issue de novo in US courts if he stays out of the Swiss courts and they try to enforce their judgment in the US. It sure seems to be what he's planning to do. Does that make sense as a strategy.

 

[D-Queued]

Typically blackmail, or trying to put the legal or the political system on trial
is unsuccessful in a court of law.
Or to put it another way for Floyd would he rather have Hope or Sh-- in his hand?

Does anyone have any clue what flick is trying to say here?

I'm lost.

Dave.

 

[flicker]

Does anyone have any clue what flick is trying to say here?

I'm lost.

Dave.

Dave,
Thank you for sharing but we knew that already.

 

[D-Queued]

Dave,
Thank you for sharing but we knew that already.

Let's share some more of what we already know.

Exhibit #2: French investigation of USPS in 200
Exhibit #3: TdF 2001

Of Lance's win in 2001, again re-affirming the climate that existed prior to Floyd's statements and the open criticism from within the ranks of the leaders in professional cycling:

The head of Mapei, one of cycling's biggest teams, said, "Without doping, it's impossible to be anywhere in the top five."

Exhibit #4: Lance calls Festina a cancer on the sport

Flick - I thought your found such comparisons enraging? Why are you not enraged?

Exhibit #5: 'Tous Dope' painted on the streets of the Tour thoughout Armstrong's era demonstrates the reputation of professional cycling among the general public.

Exhibit #6: Lance's 2004 letter to D!ck Pound: cycling has “had its problems.”

Exhibit #7: UCI refuses to sign "The Code"

UCI is, unfortunately, one of the few international sports federations that has yet to sign this important document or to provide a clear indication as to when it will do so.

Reputation, what reputation?

Dave

 

[fatandfast]

Does anyone have any clue what flick is trying to say here?

I'm lost.

Dave.

I think what flick is getting at.
Landis is saying what he did to the ToC,Armstrong,UCI,JB, previous employers. I know something juicy and if you don't do what I want or leave me alone I will tell. This time he will out the names as part of a lawsuit against him.