UCI, McQuaid & Verbruggen in lawsuit against Landis

[fatandfast]

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.

If it pleases the court I would like to prove the corrupt practices of the UCI, McQuaid and others by reading this statement of David Millar. All the statements that Mr. Millar made after his doping conviction should be disregarded until I wink at you. That will be when the denial stops and the truths starts. I know what I am talking about. yes I wrote a book but it was kind of a prank. Kind of a Punked thing for people who love cycling. Now I am telling the truth..so help me god Flandis.wink.wink

 

[D-Queued]

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.

Ah, thank you.

If it pleases the court I would like to prove the corrupt practices of the UCI, McQuaid and others by reading this statement of David Millar. All the statements that Mr. Millar made after his doping conviction should be disregarded until I wink at you. That will be when the denial stops and the truths starts. I know what I am talking about. yes I wrote a book but it was kind of a prank. Kind of a Punked thing for people who love cycling. Now I am telling the truth..so help me god Flandis.wink.wink

Landis does not have to prove the UCI is corrupt.

All he has to do is demonstrate that there were no damages.

That David Millar, among others, appears to believe that doping and professional sport are mutually inclusive underscores that Landis' statements are simply part of an open acceptance from within the sport itself.

Same holds true for Ullrich's statement: If you don't know what is going on here, then I cannot help you.

The special thing about Landis is that he is not so special.

Dave.

 

[powerste]

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.

Hey, a guy's gotta defend himself. If he has evidence to back up what he said (what he's being sued for saying) then showing it is his best defense. It was the Pat & Hein show who consciously chose to sue (or at least say they are - AFAIK Floyd still hasn't been served or otherwise officially notified) instead of leaving Floyd alone. Even the formerly lawsuit-happy LA let the statute expire instead of spending time and $$ in court w/ Floyd.

Your mention of the ToC is prescient, given that McQ & Heinie chose to put the spotlight back on Floyd with less than two weeks before it starts. It's pretty much a no-brainer that he'll now use it as a venue for making more noise.

PM + HV = FR

 

[powerste]

Landis does not have to prove the UCI is corrupt.

All he has to do is demonstrate that there were no damages.

Or cast doubt on the UCI's claim that Floyd is solely responsible for the damages. If he's the only one they're suing, they should need to prove that he's the one responsible party.

That David Millar, among others, appears to believe that doping and professional sport are mutually inclusive underscores that Landis' statements are simply part of an open acceptance from within the sport itself.

Same holds true for Ullrich's statement: If you don't know what is going on here, then I cannot help you.

The special thing about Landis is that he is not so special.

Dave.

Precisely this. There are plenty of on-record comments from plenty of players who say similar things. Trying to isolate Floyd's claims from everything else already open in the public arena re: doping and the UCI's control of it should make it pretty much impossible to lay blame for any "damages" (assuming these can even be proved to exist!) solely on Floyd.

 

[flicker]

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.

So what is the agenda, is the lawsuit about protecting the ToC by the UCI?
Are the UCI fearing Floyd was getting ready to drop a bombshell a few days before the ToC?
The UCI says it is interested in protecting the credibility of cycling.

 

[Race Radio]

So what is the agenda, is the lawsuit about protecting the ToC by the UCI?
Are the UCI fearing Floyd was getting ready to drop a bombshell a few days before the ToC?
The UCI says it is interested in protecting the credibility of cycling.

the lawsuit has only insured that Floyd will be at ToC and will drop bombs. if the UCI had not tried the bully move he would have remained quite

 

[powerste]

"They should have left him alone"

the lawsuit has only insured that Floyd will be at ToC and will drop bombs. if the UCI had not tried the bully move he would have remained quite

 

[fatandfast]

the lawsuit has only insured that Floyd will be at ToC and will drop bombs. if the UCI had not tried the bully move he would have remained quite

I don't think I disagree w what lots of people have written. Landis better be prepared to move out of his love shack to defend himself. This stuff is very expensive. I have know people that have spent 1000's defending a wrongfully given parking ticket because people were"disrespectful" at every step of the process. In the end after the "win" a judge says you are right the ticket is dismissed. You walk out. Nobody pays for the missed days of work, the continuance costs. Nothing it costs you 1000 to win a 300 dollars ticket.

Lots more is at stake for Landis. Any chance he has to work in the bike business will be vaporized if he keeps following this. Soon he will only be know for his stance against the people that took his title away. Landis's role as freedom fighter or a two wheeled Erin Brachovich is over. The sad part is that lots of people post things positively as to Landis not getting paid for all this BS. He is probably going to wish that he was greased by every interviewer he was ever in front of.
This is playing out like petty dope dealer trail where everybody is the greatest of friends.blood brother until the end. Prosecutor walks in and tells the guy he is going to love den prison for 15 years and he gives any information on "his bro" to save his neck.
Landis is being pumped up and when this is over he will be 40 and penniless. None of his "supporters" will be paying his rent, car payment or health insurance and he will wonder if it was all worth it. He may injure but he will not dismantle the dirtbags at the UCI.

 

[thehog]

I don't think I disagree w what lots of people have written. Landis better be prepared to move out of his love shack to defend himself. This stuff is very expensive. I have know people that have spent 1000's defending a wrongfully given parking ticket because people were"disrespectful" at every step of the process. In the end after the "win" a judge says you are right the ticket is dismissed. You walk out. Nobody pays for the missed days of work, the continuance costs. Nothing it costs you 1000 to win a 300 dollars ticket.

Lots more is at stake for Landis. Any chance he has to work in the bike business will be vaporized if he keeps following this. Soon he will only be know for his stance against the people that took his title away. Landis's role as freedom fighter or a two wheeled Erin Brachovich is over. The sad part is that lots of people post things positively as to Landis not getting paid for all this BS. He is probably going to wish that he was greased by every interviewer he was ever in front of.
This is playing out like petty dope dealer trail where everybody is the greatest of friends.blood brother until the end. Prosecutor walks in and tells the guy he is going to love den prison for 15 years and he gives any information on "his bro" to save his neck.
Landis is being pumped up and when this is over he will be 40 and penniless. None of his "supporters" will be paying his rent, car payment or health insurance and he will wonder if it was all worth it. He may injure but he will not dismantle the dirtbags at the UCI.

Because it's only about money isn't it? Thats all that matters. Nothing to do with integrity. And of course Floyd was doing so well in the bike industry before he "came out" - he was crazy to give that life up for the truth.

 

[powerste]

Charles Pelkey's take on the case

Thanks, RR, for tweeting the link!

Sums up what a some of us already assume...from a practical (i.e., legal and financial) standpoint, there's nothing to gain for the UCI.

This particular snippet is helpful to folks trying to understand the Swiss-American legal niceties...

The United States is not a party to any international convention governing the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. Even a small and very limited attempt 35 years ago to create reciprocal recognition and enforcement of civil judgments between the U.S. and Great Britain failed to gain traction and was never even presented to the U.S. Senate.

...in this case, there ain't none.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

The problem with the Shevill case and all of the cases you cited is that they involved EU/EFTA residents suing one another in different EU/EFTA states - which they can do under the Brussels convention. The question is - how does this work if the defendant is not a resident of an EU/EFTA state.

Shevill was predicated not on the internet but the 103 copies sold in Yorkshire as I understand it but that it was only possible to sue France Soir in the UK because it fell under the Brussels convention. My reading is that if it had been a US publication Shevill would have been compelled to sue in the US

Can Landis be sued:

i) If the terms of the Brussels convention do not apply to Landis by virtue of his not being an EU/EFTA resident then the second question is:

ii) Do the Swiss courts have jurisdiction over comments made outside of Switzerland by a non EU/EFTA resident.

I think that the key to unpacking this is not where the 'incident' took place but the residency of the defendant. Why have they not chosen to sue the websites and newspapers who have repeated the allegations in Switzerland?

Also, it appears that under Swiss libel law, Landis has fairly strong lines of defence.

I suspect Landis has fairly solid grounds for contesting whether he can be sued, however, he needs to get himself an expert on international law and Swiss libel law. Providing he avoids Maurice Suh he ought to be ok.

 

[JPM London]

The UCI have chosen switzerland purely because their case is full of holes

Isn't a post like that supposed to come with a drum roll?

 

[Anonymous]

I don't think I disagree w what lots of people have written. Landis better be prepared to move out of his love shack to defend himself. This stuff is very expensive. I have know people that have spent 1000's defending a wrongfully given parking ticket because people were"disrespectful" at every step of the process. In the end after the "win" a judge says you are right the ticket is dismissed. You walk out. Nobody pays for the missed days of work, the continuance costs. Nothing it costs you 1000 to win a 300 dollars ticket.

Lots more is at stake for Landis. Any chance he has to work in the bike business will be vaporized if he keeps following this. Soon he will only be know for his stance against the people that took his title away. Landis's role as freedom fighter or a two wheeled Erin Brachovich is over. The sad part is that lots of people post things positively as to Landis not getting paid for all this BS. He is probably going to wish that he was greased by every interviewer he was ever in front of.
This is playing out like petty dope dealer trail where everybody is the greatest of friends.blood brother until the end. Prosecutor walks in and tells the guy he is going to love den prison for 15 years and he gives any information on "his bro" to save his neck.
Landis is being pumped up and when this is over he will be 40 and penniless. None of his "supporters" will be paying his rent, car payment or health insurance and he will wonder if it was all worth it. He may injure but he will not dismantle the dirtbags at the UCI.

Landis better be prepared to move out of his love shack to defend himself. This stuff is very expensive.

I think Floyd has this covered. Great representation at a very reasonable rate (pro bono I believe).

Any chance he has to work in the bike business will be vaporized if he keeps following this.

If you are Floyd, why the hell would you even want to work in the cycling industry? There's a whole big world out there.

Landis is being pumped up

Landis was sued. I'd hardly equate that to being pumped up.

 

[Merckx index]

Which then begs the question why are they not suing the media outlets who reproduced the comments in Switzerland?

I wondered about this, too. But surely media are protected when they publish possibly untruthful comments as simply news? Publishing someone's views doesn't mean you support them.

Wrt issue of suing outside of a EU country, in the article on the Shevill case I linked earlier, it emphasized that the rulings so far suggest that lawsuits can occur "anywhere where an internet article is downloaded", and this is precisely why there is so much concern over this precedent. The same article also notes:

A court in the United Kingdom, in a decision in February that was upheld in an Oct. 19 appellate ruling, allowed boxing promoter Don King to sue boxer Lennox Lewis and his lawyer in a U.K. court for allegedly defamatory remarks published on two California-based Web sites, fightnews.com and boxingtalk.com.

That is obviously a fairly close parallel to Floyd's situation.

Wrt the point made by DQ and others that Floyd could point out all the evidence that doping is endemic in the peloton to argue that nothing he said could have damaged UCI - I'm not so sure about this. Floyd is being sued for his accusation that UCI protects certain riders. All the doping in the world doesn't really address that charge. After all, one can--and many of us here often do--argue that the reason doping is endemic is because the tests are not good enough. Even if one wants to blame that on the UCI, which is a stretch, it still doesn't speak to the question of protecting certain riders.

Protecting certain riders is a charge of favoritism. Allowing doping to go on unabated by everyone is not a matter of favoritism.

 

[Granville57]

A court in the United Kingdom, in a decision in February that was upheld in an Oct. 19 appellate ruling, allowed boxing promoter Don King to sue boxer Lennox Lewis and his lawyer in a U.K. court for allegedly defamatory remarks published on two California-based Web sites, fightnews.com and boxingtalk.com.

That is obviously a fairly close parallel to Floyd's situation.

Although the key difference would seem to be that Floyd isn't a British citizen.

I just don't see this going anywhere in terms of what they can do to Landis.
I also can't imagine him showing up in Switzerland...ever.

But my conspiratorial mind does wonder about one thing:
Any chance that Floyd still has some leftover holdings in a Swiss account somewhere that they are trying go after?

This got my attention from the Pelkey article:

First off, as in most countries, Swiss law does provide a potential plaintiff several options for recourse in the event he or she has been defamed by the public statements of another. Pursuing the matter through Swiss courts, however, would probably have little impact on a foreign defendant who doesn’t plan on returning to Switzerland or own any assets in that country.
http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/05/news/the-explainer-questions-about-the-ucis-defamation-suit-against-floyd-landis_171104

So I have to wonder, Does he "own any assets" there? Or do they maybe suspect that he does but they're not sure?

There has to be "more than meets the eye" going on with this whole debacle.

 

[fatandfast]

Because it's only about money isn't it? Thats all that matters. Nothing to do with integrity. And of course Floyd was doing so well in the bike industry before he "came out" - he was crazy to give that life up for the truth.

Again we agree. He should be all about truth. Why only stop at the stints 2006, 2008. He should carry this truth thing for another decade starting now, screw it go a full 20 of truth. When people ask what happened he can looked at them puzzled and say "what do you mean man? I am doing the truthful path, I need to stay on it, until it's over". Then when he is down at OB Pier or someplace on 15 asking people for food or money it will make it better.
The answer to your question is yes, it's all about money. Maybe they will change welfare to to truthfund but for now the guy better stop challenging big companies to face offs in foreign court rooms or he will toast himself. While he is at it why not go after Amgen, everybody knows their product line. Maybe Landis can go to court and tell kids getting treatment that the product they are using should be outlawed because he and some bike pals may misuse it.
I am not saying Landis is wrong, just taking into account that some previous post show him at a coffee shop doing a webchat . He was explaining to the web show host that he doesn't have the funds for cable at his house. Maybe you see that as a sound foothold to engage in a legal battle with a huge French company but I see it as financial suicide. I thought Landis threw the ball to Novitzky. Let him and his unlimited funds chase all the UCI corruption leads. A shamed bike racer from California will have a tough time bringing down a decades old corp monster

 

[mmedeast]

Here is the problem for the UCI. They continue to shoot themselves in the foot. Floyd's assertion that people get special treatment could be evidenced in this article by CN that came out today.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/2007-tour-de-france-doping-case-dismissed-in-france

Who did the UCI think was making this request for information? Goofy from Disneyland Paris? No it was the Public investigator and the Public prosecutor from Pau. How much more official does the UCI need? Oh, and the other reason they didn't want to hand over the requested info? "confidentiality of these "personal medical elements".

Really? Didn't these guys give up their confidentiality when they left the TDF in disgrace? It's not like we didn't know why they were leaving early.

Huh, I guess Floyd isn't so stupid after all.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Floyd is being sued for his accusation that UCI protects certain riders. All the doping in the world doesn't really address that charge. After all, one can--and many of us here often do--argue that the reason doping is endemic is because the tests are not good enough. Even if one wants to blame that on the UCI, which is a stretch, it still doesn't speak to the question of protecting certain riders.

Protecting certain riders is a charge of favoritism. Allowing doping to go on unabated by everyone is not a matter of favoritism.

Good stuff, thanks.

It would be nice if we knew how Swiss law works in this regard. Let's pretend for a minute the UCI acts like a party with a legitimate complaint and takes it *almost* to trial. It's not controversial to suggest the UCI would be embarrassed at a trial, even if they won! What are the Swiss rules about discovery?

I have a crackpot theory there's no shortage of unenforced positives and corroborating communication internal and with WADA at the UCI to prove Landis' claim. How would his side of the complaint get it?

 

[fatandfast]

maybe Landis can be this kids tour manager
http://www.break.com/index/nu-thang-2054756

Go Landis!!

 

[MarkvW]

enforcing a swiss judgment

I did a little research. It is quite normal for foreign nation judgments to be enforced in the US. But there are defenses. You can always challenge the jurisdiction of the foreign court, and (in California at least), you can defend by claiming that the other forum was extremely inconvenient. There are other defenses.

Floyd may be making the best play (so long as he never brings any property into the EC).

It would be interesting to know just how far and wide Floyd sent his emails.

 

[Granville57]

I did a little research. It is quite normal for foreign nation judgments to be enforced in the US.

And Charles Pelkey did "a little research" as well.

The United States is not a party to any international convention governing the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. Even a small and very limited attempt 35 years ago to create reciprocal recognition and enforcement of civil judgments between the U.S. and Great Britain failed to gain traction and was never even presented to the U.S. Senate.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/05/news/the-explainer-questions-about-the-ucis-defamation-suit-against-floyd-landis_171104

 

[DirtyWorks]

Here is the problem for the UCI. They continue to shoot themselves in the foot. Floyd's assertion that people get special treatment could be evidenced in this article by CN that came out today.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/2007-tour-de-france-doping-case-dismissed-in-france

Who did the UCI think was making this request for information? Goofy from Disneyland Paris? No it was the Public investigator and the Public prosecutor from Pau. How much more official does the UCI need? Oh, and the other reason they didn't want to hand over the requested info? "confidentiality of these "personal medical elements".

Really? Didn't these guys give up their confidentiality when they left the TDF in disgrace? It's not like we didn't know why they were leaving early.

Huh, I guess Floyd isn't so stupid after all.

The UCI denied the request because it probably isn't a an agency with some authority to use personal medical data. Even if the agency had the authority to access the data, the UCI would pretend otherwise in an attempt to drag the investigation down. If I were running a cycling federation and protecting doped riders, then I would do the same thing. Well played by the UCI.

 

[thehog]

Again your correlating happiness/success by money. Do you think Lance is more happy than Floyd at this point?

Floyd is not taking on the UCI. The UCI is taking on Floyd.

To be honest it's a lot easier to tell the truth than keep up the lie.

Floyd will be ok. He's in a good state of mind. It's Armstrong whom Im worried about. He got a long way to fall.... won't be pretty.

Again we agree. He should be all about truth. Why only stop at the stints 2006, 2008. He should carry this truth thing for another decade starting now, screw it go a full 20 of truth. When people ask what happened he can looked at them puzzled and say "what do you mean man? I am doing the truthful path, I need to stay on it, until it's over". Then when he is down at OB Pier or someplace on 15 asking people for food or money it will make it better.
The answer to your question is yes, it's all about money. Maybe they will change welfare to to truthfund but for now the guy better stop challenging big companies to face offs in foreign court rooms or he will toast himself. While he is at it why not go after Amgen, everybody knows their product line. Maybe Landis can go to court and tell kids getting treatment that the product they are using should be outlawed because he and some bike pals may misuse it.
I am not saying Landis is wrong, just taking into account that some previous post show him at a coffee shop doing a webchat . He was explaining to the web show host that he doesn't have the funds for cable at his house. Maybe you see that as a sound foothold to engage in a legal battle with a huge French company but I see it as financial suicide. I thought Landis threw the ball to Novitzky. Let him and his unlimited funds chase all the UCI corruption leads. A shamed bike racer from California will have a tough time bringing down a decades old corp monster

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

I wondered about this, too. But surely media are protected when they publish possibly untruthful comments as simply news? Publishing someone's views doesn't mean you support them.

Wrt issue of suing outside of a EU country, in the article on the Shevill case I linked earlier, it emphasized that the rulings so far suggest that lawsuits can occur "anywhere where an internet article is downloaded", and this is precisely why there is so much concern over this precedent. The same article also notes:



That is obviously a fairly close parallel to Floyd's situation.

Wrt the point made by DQ and others that Floyd could point out all the evidence that doping is endemic in the peloton to argue that nothing he said could have damaged UCI - I'm not so sure about this. Floyd is being sued for his accusation that UCI protects certain riders. All the doping in the world doesn't really address that charge. After all, one can--and many of us here often do--argue that the reason doping is endemic is because the tests are not good enough. Even if one wants to blame that on the UCI, which is a stretch, it still doesn't speak to the question of protecting certain riders.

Protecting certain riders is a charge of favoritism. Allowing doping to go on unabated by everyone is not a matter of favoritism.

The key point is that King wasn't suing Lewis in California (where the articles were downloaded), whereas Shevill was suing France Soir in the UK where the articles were viewed.

Libel tourism is obviously a massive problem and the UK is a popular refuge for such people - which makes me wonder why they did not try to sue in the UK.

Now lets look at the Swiss law on defamation.

http://www.admin.ch/ch/f/rs/311_0/a173.html

2. The defendant will not incur any penalty if he proves that the allegations he has articulated and propagated are truthful or that he had reasonable cause to hold them in good faith as true.

3. The accused will not be admitted to such evidence and will be punished if his allegations were articulated or spread without regard to public interest or without other sufficient reason, mainly for the purpose of speaking ill of others, particularly when 'they relate to privacy or family life.

So basically, Landis's team would end up calling McQuaid to testify about the donation, they would almost certainly want to see the paperwork, etc, could potentially call a public interest defence, and ultimately, it would mean that the UCI would spend a lot of time having its dirty laundry aired.

 

[MarkvW]

states

And Charles Pelkey did "a little research" as well.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/05/news/the-explainer-questions-about-the-ucis-defamation-suit-against-floyd-landis_171104

Obviously, the US has no uniform law regarding the enforcement of foreign judgments. But that doesn't mean that the several states can't have their own laws regarding the enforcement of foreign judgments. Some do. I've read Florida, NY, and Calif statutes that pertain to the enforcement of foreign judgments in those states.

Ask Pelkey about this!