UCI, McQuaid & Verbruggen in lawsuit against Landis

[Mrs John Murphy]

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!

Worth noting:

The Libel Tourism Protection Act

The Ehrenfeld judgment created a great stir in the US. Dr Ehrenfeld and her supporters campaigned for legislation to protect Americans against foreign libel laws. In 2008 the State of New York passed the Libel Terrorism Protection Act, an odd name which presumably implies that Eady J is a libel terrorist. It provides that a foreign judgment in defamation proceedings should not be enforceable in the US unless the foreign law provides “as least as much protection for freedom of speech and the press as would be provided by both the US and New York constitutions.” It does not seem to matter whether the claimant is a national of the foreign jurisdiction, suing to vindicate his reputation in his home country or even whether the defendant submitted to the foreign jurisdiction. Similar legislation has been passed in California, Illinois, New Hampshire, Florida and Hawaii. A Bill has been introduced into the US Senate by Senators Arlen Specter and Joseph Lieberman which goes further and gives the defendant a cause of action in the US to recover any damages he has paid and costs he has incurred in the foreign proceedings, as well as damages for “the harm caused to the US person due to decreased opportunities to publish, conduct research or generate funding.”

http://www.southeastcircuit.org.uk/education/ebsworth-lecture-libel-tourism

So the question is - could Landis counter-sue the UCI, McQuaid and Verdruggie?

 

[fatandfast]

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.

that is a super good post. personally I would have paid as much attention to #3 as number two. I see Landis and his purpose always about because things were full of disappointment. The emails and other comments make me think he is so, so bitter about keeping "the secret" safe,and feeling betrayed that he will do anything for revenge. You can see how insular the UCI is, this on top of everything else should be enough for regime change

 

[MarkvW]

sure

Worth noting:



http://www.southeastcircuit.org.uk/education/ebsworth-lecture-libel-tourism

So the question is - could Landis counter-sue the UCI, McQuaid and Verdruggie?

Even if Floyd proved they defamed him, he'd still need to prove damage to his reputation to make the suit worthwhile. Floyd's rep is pretty much in the dumpster (even taking into account his ardent neo-supporters in the Clinic). Getting a lawyer to take such a chancy proposition on a contingency fee would be tough.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

No. It's not about defamation. It is about protecting people from defamation cases.

The point is that under the anti-Libel tourism laws, if Landis loses the Swiss case, he can sue McQuaid, Verdruggie, for costs etc in the US.

So - UCI sues Landis for defamation in Switzerland. Landis loses.

After that, Landis can then sue the UCI et al in New York or California to reclaim his costs (any fine etc) because he is an American 'victim' of libel tourism.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I know a lot of bandwidth has been spent 'trying' this case already - but does anyone really believe that UCI, HV or PMcQ will actually go through with this?

I think it is nothing more than a way for the UCI etc to stop Landis making any further remarks regarding the UCI etc in public or the media.

 

[Topangarider]

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/200...claim that the UCI is hanging it's case upon?

 

[D-Queued]

... Providing he avoids Maurice Suh he ought to be ok.

I second that motion.

...

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.

There are some very good examples of favoritism. And, we don't even need to cite Armstrong here (though he is always a good example of anything related to doping in sport).

This is one, obviously:

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

....

But, there may be issues with release of anti-doping test data to police authorities. In joining the UCI, you agree to be subject to whatever tests and consequences that the UCI may impose. It is not clear what you agree to with respect to legal authorities, or what the legal issues are with respect to their ability to subpoena or issue warrants for information with Swiss entities.

Maybe WADA can clear that up, as we also have had the same problem in reverse (e.g. OP).

HOWEVER, we do have lots of other evidence of protection of riders - even those whose profiles are highly suspect:

1. The WADA Independent Observer Report

The absolute clincher and proof of favoritism:

"riders demonstrating suspicious profiles and/or showing significantly impressive performances at the Tour were tested on surprisingly few occasions..."

The detail:

Recommendation 22: DCOs should not disclose whether other riders are scheduled for testing during the same mission or that day as this information is confidential and carries a strong deterrent effect.

...

• While recognising the high level of testing and a focus on targeting riders in the Pre-Tour period (i.e. April to June 2010) it was noted that there were a number of riders of significance who took part in the Tour who had either not been tested during the Pre-Tour period or who had only been tested once (with the majority of these for the ABP).

• During the Tour, a number of riders demonstrating suspicious profiles and/or showing significantly impressive performances at the Tour were tested on surprisingly few occasions and for three riders of interest did not provide a blood sample for the purposes of anti-doping in the whole Tour (instead each providing a single sample for the ABP). This was consistent with the IO Team’s view that at times more weight was given by the UCI to ABP samples than samples for the detection of the ‘presence’ of prohibited substances and/or methods.

• The IO Team was surprised to see that a random draw was conducted for Post-Finish testing on two stages. The IO Team did question the rationale of even conducting a random draw, and while recognising that the particular stage was a flat one (which usually finishes in a bunch sprint), it seemed a missed opportunity not to use the intelligence available to the UCI or even base the selections on the performance of the riders in the stage. This was considered by the UCI after the first random draw was conducted and the IO Team only observed one further random draw being conducted again on the Tour.

• A rider identified as having a priority index of eight (with ten being the highest and most at risk of doping) was tested only once (urine EPO) during the Pre-Tour period with no blood sample collected for the analysis of CERA, HBT, HBOC or other prohibited substances and/or methods. During the Tour recommendations from the Laboratory related to target testing for EPO did not seem to be conducted expediently or as appropriate (ie. the EPO test was conducted 6 days later while the blood sample was only analysed for hGH). Lastly, following a significant delay in providing an early morning sample and in conjunction with the intelligence already held on this rider, there seems no evidence of more intense target testing on this rider.

(A signficant delay in providing a sample... must have needed a shower first...!)

• For a rider identified as having a priority index of ten, no blood samples were collected following the Laboratory recommendations after interpretation of blood passport data from the first week of the Tour, with only urine being collected and no blood as recommended by the Laboratory. Further, a recommendation to target test the rider for EPO took seven days to be executed. (after it would have long cleared the system)

• A rider identified as having a priority index of ten was not tested for either urine or blood from 3 April to the start of the Tour. Recommendations made by the Laboratory following testing in the first three days of the Tour resulted in no further blood samples being collected but rather only urine and approximately ten days later. The IO Team became aware of the remarks made by the laboratory regarding the analysis of this rider’s specific sample that raised the suspicion of the use of proteases (i.e. obvious sample masking). No further information regarding any actions taken by the UCI for further analysis of that sample was made available.

• For a rider identified as having a priority index of eight, who was recommended to be target tested for EPO by the Laboratory, the UCI did not target test the rider and in addition a sample collected five days later was not analysed for EPO. Interestingly in this case collection of follow-up samples from this rider was initiated by the AFLD via the WADA Resolution.

• Given the challenges in organising and resourcing unannounced missions, the IO Team would have expected to observe multiple riders being targeted for morning and/or evening testing. However, it was observed that when a single rider was targeted there was no consideration to testing additional riders either from the same team as the targeted rider or from teams also residing in the same hotel. (Full team favoritism... almost certainly Contador's team!!!)

2. Advance notice of testing (multiple examples and an ongoing Police investigation)

Dave.

 

[D-Queued]

I know a lot of bandwidth has been spent 'trying' this case already - but does anyone really believe that UCI, HV or PMcQ will actually go through with this?

...

They have already initiated the legal proceedings.

If they wanted a 'cease and desist', this would have been requested.

Dave.

 

[thehog]

They have already initiated the legal proceedings.

If they wanted a 'cease and desist', this would have been requested.

Dave.

Cease & desist was issued in March 2010. That went no where.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

They have already initiated the legal proceedings.

If they wanted a 'cease and desist', this would have been requested.

Dave.

Not being smart - but so far we have a press release on behalf of the UCI,HV & PMcQ.

Is there any way to see that a case has been set?(or whatever the legal term is).

Not saying that I don't trust the UCI or that I am questioning their integrity

 

[eleven]

Per Velonews:

Landis wrote that the suit was "nothing short of witness intimidation and a terrorist tactic designed to take away from me one of Americans’ most highly valued rights. So while the clouded version of freedom of speech offered to Europeans has allowed them to bully others into subservience in the past, it will only serve to strengthen my resolve to expose them as the criminals that they are."

This has got to be a joke. A terrorist tactic? Terrorist?

 

[Mambo95]

I know a lot of bandwidth has been spent 'trying' this case already - but does anyone really believe that UCI, HV or PMcQ will actually go through with this?

I think it is nothing more than a way for the UCI etc to stop Landis making any further remarks regarding the UCI etc in public or the media.

I agree. This has gone as far as it will. The UCI have lodged their objections. No-one wins by taking it further.

 

[D-Queued]

Per Velonews:

This has got to be a joke. A terrorist tactic? Terrorist?

...and bad timing on that reference as well...

If nothing else, hyperbole is alive and well in professional cycling.

And, this is where Floyd's tactics are inappropriate. I can defend his ability to say what he did, and point out the veracity of his statements and the hypocrisy of the UCI.

I do not agree, however, with the strategy. Frankly, I don't see the need for it. It will be far more effective to walk softly and carry a big stick, or let Novitzky carry it for you.

Floyd's statements may upset Hein and Pat. Novitzky will destroy them. I vote for the latter.

Dave.

 

[Granville57]

I do not agree, however, with the strategy. Frankly, I don't see the need for it. It will be far more effective to walk softly and carry a big stick, or let Novitzky carry it for you.

This has long been the most curious aspect to me. Why, if FLandis has worked closely with Novitsky & Co., does any of this stuff see the light of day? I would think that the Feds would've preferred a quieter Landis in the buildup to their final case. If he was of significant value to them, I would think that they would at least offer some guidance along the way and keep him out of the spotlight.

Unless his provocations are all part of a bigger plan...

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

I think there is always a danger of over-reading it (in terms of a grand plan), and there are plenty of people out there in the media who never miss a chance to stitch Landis up post whistle-blowing.

Landis needs to remember Kimmage's advice and avoid speaking to the cycling press at all costs.

Regarding Landis - other than the Kimmage interview and the first round of emails we know very little of what he has said to the Feds. I am quite sure that McQuaid is trying to provoke Landis, almost certainly in the hope of compromising any case.

I think as other people have said - this is a lot of sabre rattling from the UCI and Verdruggie.

 

[MD FACG FACP]

I call BS on that one.

Well I guess that ends that. First bin Laden, now this what a week. Thanks Mark

 

[powerste]

Per Velonews:

This has got to be a joke. A terrorist tactic? Terrorist?

Landis needs to remember Kimmage's advice and avoid speaking to the cycling press at all costs.

Regarding Landis - other than the Kimmage interview and the first round of emails we know very little of what he has said to the Feds. I am quite sure that McQuaid is trying to provoke Landis, almost certainly in the hope of compromising any case.

It will be far more effective to walk softly and carry a big stick, or let Novitzky carry it for you.

Absolutely folks!

Why FL Is running his mouth like this is beyond me. "I am prepared to defend myself against this lawsuit" or "I look forward to reviewing their evidence during discovery" is about as far as he needed to go. To talk about "terrorist tactics" the week that the US took out OBL is beyond idiotic. And someone needs to get it through to Floyd that we're past baiting the UCI. He's already done that, and it worked nicely for a while.

Now that someone else is baiting him, Floyd needs to act like a grown-up.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I think there is always a danger of over-reading it (in terms of a grand plan), and there are plenty of people out there in the media who never miss a chance to stitch Landis up post whistle-blowing.

Landis needs to remember Kimmage's advice and avoid speaking to the cycling press at all costs.

Regarding Landis - other than the Kimmage interview and the first round of emails we know very little of what he has said to the Feds. I am quite sure that McQuaid is trying to provoke Landis, almost certainly in the hope of compromising any case.

I think as other people have said - this is a lot of sabre rattling from the UCI and Verdruggie.

Interesting theory - because I don't think they are trying to find out anything (you can bet there is a hotline between Aigle & Austin).

I just think this move is nothing more than to stop Landis making anymore claims against the UCI as they know things are about to blow up bigtime in the US and that Landis will be a go to person for the media.

What they may not realize is that some of the bigger organisations already have Armstrong's 'Dopituary' already written up.

 

[MarkvW]

Baiting

Per Velonews:

This has got to be a joke. A terrorist tactic? Terrorist?

Floyd's calling them criminals. That's defamatory per se. That's going to be a new claim by the UCI crowd. If Floyd is defending, why in the name of all that is just and holy is he making his lawyers' job harder?

Floyd's talking even more crazy talk. He's talking about deposing his old peloton-mates in the course of this case! Multiple international depositions would be crazy-expensive.

There is a good chance Floyd is not telling the truth here. Who would have thought?

Why would any lawyer front money for such madness? The only conceivable attorneys would be his current team, but they'd only take it if it somehow increased their chances of winning the qui tam lawsuit. I can't see it.

Methinks Floyd's talk emanates from the sphincter region. Braggadoccio!

 

[flicker]

Floyd's calling them criminals. That's defamatory per se. That's going to be a new claim by the UCI crowd. If Floyd is defending, why in the name of all that is just and holy is he making his lawyers' job harder?

Floyd's talking even more crazy talk. He's talking about deposing his old peloton-mates in the course of this case! Multiple international depositions would be crazy-expensive.

There is a good chance Floyd is not telling the truth here. Who would have thought?

Why would any lawyer front money for such madness? The only conceivable attorneys would be his current team, but they'd only take it if it somehow increased their chances of winning the qui tam lawsuit. I can't see it.

Methinks Floyd's talk emanates from the sphincter region. Braggadoccio!

Blasphemy, blue blistering barnacles Tin, Tin. How can you speak of the God Floyd like that.

 

[Merckx index]

• A rider identified as having a priority index of ten was not tested for either urine or blood from 3 April to the start of the Tour.

Could that possibly be Bert? If so, how ironic. This favoritism, if it really was such, meant he had no tests between the Dauphine and the Tour, which as we discussed on another thread, could have been crucial evidence against transfusion of CB.

But I'm unclear how the priority index is determined. Are high scores the result of great results, or previous doping or suspicious tests?

 

[hrotha]

Could that possibly be Bert? If so, how ironic. This favoritism, if it really was such, meant he had no tests between the Dauphine and the Tour, which as we discussed on another thread, could have been crucial evidence against transfusion of CB.

But I'm unclear how the priority index is determined. Are high scores the result of great results, or previous doping or suspicious tests?

He had already implicitly acknowledged there were no tests between the Dauphiné and the Tour. He was only tested "on the eve" of the Tour.

 

[MarkvW]

The UCI

Could that possibly be Bert? If so, how ironic. This favoritism, if it really was such, meant he had no tests between the Dauphine and the Tour, which as we discussed on another thread, could have been crucial evidence against transfusion of CB.

But I'm unclear how the priority index is determined. Are high scores the result of great results, or previous doping or suspicious tests?

If only the UCI were open and transparent . . .

 

[D-Queued]

If only the UCI were open and transparent . . .

...if only the UCI didn't show favoritism and protect dirty riders...

Dave.

 

[eleven]

...and bad timing on that reference as well...

If nothing else, hyperbole is alive and well in professional cycling.

And, this is where Floyd's tactics are inappropriate. I can defend his ability to say what he did, and point out the veracity of his statements and the hypocrisy of the UCI.

I do not agree, however, with the strategy. Frankly, I don't see the need for it. It will be far more effective to walk softly and carry a big stick, or let Novitzky carry it for you.

Floyd's statements may upset Hein and Pat. Novitzky will destroy them. I vote for the latter.

Dave.

I'm with ya. Landis had an opportunity to make a great statement and really put a shout out against the UCI (or he could have just not responded, which might be even more powerful).

Instead, he starts dropping terms like terrorists? Foot, meet mouth. No one in the States wants to hear any sports figures being compared to terrorists at the moment.