UCI, McQuaid & Verbruggen in lawsuit against Landis

[Mrs John Murphy]

No, this is not the UCI's worst move, but is indicative of the lack of knowledge of the law by Landis.



statements published on the internet are available everywhere and are public everywhere (at least according to the majority of legal systems in the world). This means that statements put online anywhere, or are, with the knowledge of the person who uttered them, put online can result in damage everywhere. A case of defamation can, in most legal systems, be tried in the state where the damages occur, as well as in the place where the damaging act took place. Which means that McQuaid could have started this case anywhere.

This means that:

He is awarded the same protection of freedom of speech as any other in Switzerland and not in the same manner as his freedom of speech would be protected in the US. Calling this witness intimidation and a terrorist tactic is grossly overstating the situation and truly does not do any good for Landis

Also this:

Only has effect in the case where these lawyers are Swiss lawyers who can practice in Switzerland

Can you give examples of statements given by people in country A being sued in country B, specifically, incidents of people being sued in Switzerland for statements published on the internet, which were spoken in another country.

Before accusing Landis of having no knowledge of the law, it would be nice to have chapter and verse to support your argument.

 

[nevada]

Can you give examples of statements given by people in country A being sued in country B, specifically, incidents of people being sued in Switzerland for statements published on the internet, which were spoken in another country.

Before accusing Landis of having no knowledge of the law, it would be nice to have chapter and verse to support your argument.

These cases loose thier gravity as time passes.

 

[Barrus]

Can you give examples of statements given by people in country A being sued in country B, specifically, incidents of people being sued in Switzerland for statements published on the internet, which were spoken in another country.

Before accusing Landis of having no knowledge of the law, it would be nice to have chapter and verse to support your argument.

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

 

[Nick777]

Do you have a link for it?

Seems like he means business... What he is suggesting would lead us to believe that he actually has evidence of certain activities, which he did in fact use to convince the authorities. Now he wants to go public with it?

Sorry-I should have included.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2011...-defense-against-uci-defamation-claims_171051

 

[Barrus]

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

Stupid from me, forget that Shevill is also applicable to Switzerland

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

As I said - are there examples of this kind of case being successful in Switzerland.

 

[Barrus]

As I said - are there examples of this kind of case being successful in Switzerland.

Like I said Shevill gives the legal basis for such a suit being successful. It gives the legal basis for trying a person in Switzerland. Now if you want examples for this exact situation in Switzerland you are at the wrong adress, however you have alreeady received your answer concerning the law. Shevill was a case concerning defamation, or actually libel and its precedent is applicable to Switzerland, so even though the case did not occur, nor had anything to do with, Switzerland, its ruling still is seen as a legal precedent there. And in that manner is just as viable as an example as any Swiss case would be

 

[peloton]

Floyd Landis says he intends a vigorous defense against UCI defamation claims

http://velonews.competitor.com/2011...-defense-against-uci-defamation-claims_171051

 

[theswordsman]

I loved the Velonews story (link above)

Indeed in recent discussions I’ve learned that many of them have chosen to clear their conscience and have confirmed to USADA many of the allegations that I’ve made which were written off by the perpetrators of the fraud as “sour milk.”

However in light of the UCI’s attempt to collect defamation damages against me and the resulting necessity to have to defend myself, I now will have no choice but to depose those cyclists and expose them and for that I’m deeply sorry.

As far as I know, Landis has no assets for the UCI & the two leaders to win. They claim they're doing it to protect the sport, but it really just perpetuates the talk of corruption. I'd love to see maybe one deposition leak a week.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Like I said Shevill gives the legal basis for such a suit being successful. It gives the legal basis for trying a person in Switzerland. Now if you want examples for this exact situation in Switzerland you are at the wrong adress, however you have alreeady received your answer concerning the law. Shevill was a case concerning defamation, or actually libel and its precedent is applicable to Switzerland, so even though the case did not occur, nor had anything to do with, Switzerland, its ruling still is seen as a legal precedent there. And in that manner is just as viable as an example as any Swiss case would be

That's not what I asked. I asked specifically about Swiss cases examples of this case being successful.

If you can't provide examples then that is fine - just say so - there is nothing wrong with saying 'I don't know I'm afraid' there is no need to do your internet hard man routine again.

 

[Anonymous]

I loved the Velonews story (link above)





As far as I know, Landis has no assets for the UCI & the two leaders to win. They claim they're doing it to protect the sport, but it really just perpetuates the talk of corruption. I'd love to see maybe one deposition leak a week.

I think the UCI/McQuaid/Verbruggen have just made the mistake of their lifetime. After the bluster and initial threat of legal action Floyd baited them... and they bit.

My guess is the suit was filed for show and I don't believe McQuaid thought for a second Ladis would be able to defend himself.

 

[biopass]

However in light of the UCI’s attempt to collect defamation damages against me and the resulting necessity to have to defend myself, I now will have no choice but to depose those cyclists and expose them and for that I’m deeply sorry.

I can see some biological passport violation cases coming up.

 

[fatandfast]

Landis is a cool calculator. He yelled Lance's name from every mountaintop to get attention and the media exposure that got him gigs talking about doping. Now he says he will have to out others to defend himself. Had he started with the whole truth any one of the times he started saying it this would be a non-issue. He is going to call old USPS or Saturn team members or staff about a case in Switzerland? Vigorous defense? with what?
Let McQuaid and the rest of the dust covered has-beens running the UCI deal with their hurt feelings. If they want to bring suit against Landis let them do it in the US. Landis should act like it's an old time movie where once you get across the border you are out of the jurisdiction. Leave it alone, no more press releases. Landis just open a coffee shop or sporting goods store and let this go

 

[Merckx index]

No, this is not the UCI's worst move, but is indicative of the lack of knowledge of the law by Landis.

He is awarded the same protection of freedom of speech as any other in Switzerland and not in the same manner as his freedom of speech would be protected in the US. Calling this witness intimidation and a terrorist tactic is grossly overstating the situation and truly does not do any good for Landis.

I think you're being inconsistent here. On the one hand, you cite cases where organizations have been successfully sued, leading to a situation where "Web publishers may have to learn to live with frightening foreign judgments hanging over their heads". On the other hand, you claim this is not intimidation. If someone can threaten you with a frightening foreign judgment for something you said, I would call that intimidating. If you read the links you yourself cited, you will understand that a lot of people ARE intimidated by this brave new world of internet speech.

OTOH, it's not clear that Floyd has anything to worry about in terms of assets, even assuming he had any (or might, in the future):

U.S.-based Web publishers, at least those that don’t have assets in foreign countries which could be seized, can take some solace in the fact that foreign plaintiffs are likely to have a tough time enforcing foreign judgments in U.S. courts, particularly in cases attacking speech that would be protected in the United States.

http://www.ojr.org/ojr/stories/041102thompson/

 

[Semper Fidelis]

One could try something like this:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/create.html

That can be done or you could also just send these folks some emails that basically says,,,,,,,, you guys are a bunch of corrupt asshats who need to get your grapes out of you azzes and smell the fresh air.


McQuaid Pat <pat.mcquaid@uci.ch>; Strebel Jean-Pierre <jean-pierre.strebel@uci.ch>; Verbiest Philippe - UCI <philippe.verbiest@uci.ch>; Lanaya Amina - UCI <Amina.Lanaya@uci.ch>; Hubschmid Christophe <Christophe.Hubschmid@uci.ch>; Chevallier Philippe - UCI <Philippe.Chevallier@uci.ch>; Rumpf Alain - GCP <alain.rumpf@globalcyclingpromotion.com>; Rossi Francesca - UCI <Francesca.Rossi@uci.ch>; Zorzoli Mario - UCI <mario.zorzoli@uci.ch>; Middag Gerrit - UCI <Gerrit.Middag@uci.ch>; Magné Frédéric - UCI <Frederic.Magne@uci.ch>; Schnegg Claude - UCI <Claude.Schnegg@uci.ch>; Baumann Christian - UCI <Christian.Baumann@uci.ch>; Stauffer Julien - UCI <julien.stauffer@uci.ch

 

[thehog]

That's not what I asked. I asked specifically about Swiss cases examples of this case being successful.

If you can't provide examples then that is fine - just say so - there is nothing wrong with saying 'I don't know I'm afraid' there is no need to do your internet hard man routine again.

Very good... I did laugh. I think you got him Sir.

 

[Cloxxki]

I think the UCI/McQuaid/Verbruggen have just made the mistake of their lifetime. After the bluster and initial threat of legal action Floyd baited them... and they bit.

My guess is the suit was filed for show and I don't believe McQuaid thought for a second Ladis would be able to defend himself.

How stupid can one, with such expensive lawyers, get?

Floyd is indeed being forced to open up all the crappy **** he has on people. This may go beyond what he has put out in the open, at least on a personal level. So what if HWSNBN hates your guts, and who wants to befriend Hein? Some riders he may consider friends, will need to be sacrifcied, well, their truth exposed, for him to defend himself. He's not like the Oakley lady, prepared to go to jail for someone else's crime. He's a great guy alright, but he's no-one's saint.
Just having to defend himself, will greatly damage reputations of cyclists, likely mostly Americans. And with that, pro cycling in general.
The UCI can be sure that all the nasties about Lance will come out thanks to current cases with Floyd involved, any next case involving Americans, will take away from the shame of HWSNBN.

 

[Barrus]

That's not what I asked. I asked specifically about Swiss cases examples of this case being successful.

If you can't provide examples then that is fine - just say so - there is nothing wrong with saying 'I don't know I'm afraid' there is no need to do your internet hard man routine again.

Like I said, if you want exact examples you are talking to the wrong man. However you asked for chapter and verse to support my argument, as is seen in your post:

Can you give examples of statements given by people in country A being sued in country B, specifically, incidents of people being sued in Switzerland for statements published on the internet, which were spoken in another country.

Before accusing Landis of having no knowledge of the law, it would be nice to have chapter and verse to support your argument.

To substantiate my point it is not necessary to show examples of such cases in Switzerland when a legal precedent exists in European Union law, at least in this case, where this is also applicable to Switzerland, which substantiate my position. A legal precedent that has also been referenced to in Swiss cases, might I add.

 

[thehog]

Just having to defend himself, will greatly damage reputations of cyclists, likely mostly Americans. And with that, pro cycling in general..

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...

 

[thehog]

Like I said, if you want exact examples you are talking to the wrong man. However you asked for chapter and verse to support my argument, as is seen in your post:



To substantiate my point it is not necessary to show examples of such cases in Switzerland when a legal precedent exists in European Union law, at least in this case, where this is also applicable to Switzerland, which substantiate my position. A legal precedent that has also been referenced to in Swiss cases, might I add.

I see a barrel and hear scratching.

Give in mate. You're looking stupid. Lets move on and talk the point at hand - Floyd and the UCI....

 

[Anonymous]

How stupid can one, with such expensive lawyers, get?

Floyd is indeed being forced to open up all the crappy **** he has on people. This may go beyond what he has put out in the open, at least on a personal level. So what if HWSNBN hates your guts, and who wants to befriend Hein? Some riders he may consider friends, will need to be sacrifcied, well, their truth exposed, for him to defend himself. He's not like the Oakley lady, prepared to go to jail for someone else's crime. He's a great guy alright, but he's no-one's saint.
Just having to defend himself, will greatly damage reputations of cyclists, likely mostly Americans. And with that, pro cycling in general.
The UCI can be sure that all the nasties about Lance will come out thanks to current cases with Floyd involved, any next case involving Americans, will take away from the shame of HWSNBN.

Could be attributed to stupidity, but don't for get raw arrogance.

 

[Granville57]

Clearly, this email was not written by Floyd. The words were chosen by someone else for specific reasons. The UCI has thrust Floyd back into the spotlight on the eve of the Gir0. That brings one thing to mind for me:

Is this some attempt to distract from the Gir0 itself as a result of other political battles taking place? The negative TV ads, competing with the ToC, etc.. Is the timing of this meant to damage the Gir0 in any way?

Or, are they trying to force FLandis into revealing what others have already testified about in order to prepare for the impending US case? I would imagine that certain people would like to know what other riders have already confessed to.

 

[VeloCity]

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...

I dunno...a big part of the UCI's action against Landis is because of Landis' claims that the UCI protected certain riders. That will be difficult for Landis to substantiate - it was him who made the claims, after all, so it'll be up to him to back them up.

But even so, if this does go forward, there's going to be a lot of stuff that comes out that's going to make the UCI and pro cycling in general look very, very bad, even if they get a ruling in their favor. I see it as being like the SCA case against Armstrong - he may have won the ruling, but what came out of that case tainted his reputation irreversibly. I can't for the life of me understand what the UCI thinks it has to gain from this.

Just out of curiosity, if there were evidence uncovered in the Novitzky investigation that Landis was aware of re: the UCI, could it be made available for Landis' defense, or is it off-limits because it's still an open case?

 

[spetsa]

Like I said, if you want exact examples you are talking to the wrong man. However you asked for chapter and verse to support my argument, as is seen in your post:



To substantiate my point it is not necessary to show examples of such cases in Switzerland when a legal precedent exists in European Union law, at least in this case, where this is also applicable to Switzerland, which substantiate my position. A legal precedent that has also been referenced to in Swiss cases, might I add.

Yeah, we get it. You are the smartest person here. Why don't you stop arguing with forum guests and go back to moderating.

 

[Barrus]

Yeah, we get it. You are the smartest person here. Why don't you stop arguing with forum guests and go back to moderating.

Nope, Im most certainly not the smartest person around here. But I do like to express my opinion and debate. But I guess I'm not allowed to do so, at least not according to you