Why I will never eat fondue again:

[ChewbaccaD]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/swiss-court-finds-in-ucis-favour-in-landis-defamation-case

Hey Switzerland court system, go **** yourselves.

Never, never, never, never, never eat fondue again. EVER!!! The Melting Pot can go take a flying leap too. And IKEA...(I'm being told that's Sweedish...cool, I like the meatballs anyway, so I retract my IKEA statement)

EDIT: And to be clear, the UCI is a corrupt organization that I believe colluded with Lance Armstrong to hide his doping positive in the Tour of Switzerland in 2001.

 

[MarkvW]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/swiss-court-finds-in-ucis-favour-in-landis-defamation-case

Hey Switzerland court system, go **** yourselves.

Never, never, never, never, never eat fondue again. EVER!!! The Melting Pot can go take a flying leap too. And IKEA...(I'm being told that's Sweedish...cool, I like the meatballs anyway, so I retract my IKEA statement)

EDIT: And to be clear, the UCI is a corrupt organization that I believe colluded with Lance Armstrong to hide his doping positive in the Tour of Switzerland in 2001.

Well, I hope that's the last of the Floyd Landis Train Wreck.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

The Union Cycliste Internationale, Patrick (Pat) McQuaid and/or Henricus (Hein) Verbruggen have concealed cases of doping, received money for doing so, have accepted money from Lance Armstrong to conceal a doping case, have protected certain racing cyclists, concealed cases of doping, have engaged in manipulation, particularly of tests and races, have hesitated and delayed publishing the results of a positive test on Alberto Contador, have accepted bribes, are corrupt, are terrorists, have no regard for the rules, load the dice, are fools, do not have a genuine desire to restore discipline to cycling, are full of ****, are clowns, their words are worthless, are liars, and are no different to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.

 

[Avoriaz]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/swiss-court-finds-in-ucis-favour-in-landis-defamation-case

Hey Switzerland court system, go **** yourselves.

Never, never, never, never, never eat fondue again. EVER!!! The Melting Pot can go take a flying leap too.

What about Toblerone? They're yummy

 

[ebandit]

swiss?

i'm wearing a swiss watch

landis was not just late for the hearing he just did not show at all

can he just ignore the decision / not take out any adverts

would further fines follow?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Well, I hope that's the last of the Floyd Landis Train Wreck.

I don't. That any jurisdiction in the world allows a defamation case based on the statements they have forbidden Floyd from making simply shows that the idea of free speech needs to be extended in those countries. Not only that, but it will be interesting to see if California enforces this judgment. I don't think they will, but it will be interesting to see how that plays out. Will the UCI try to have that judgment enforced here? I certainly hope so.

 

[thirteen]

The Union Cycliste Internationale, Patrick (Pat) McQuaid and/or Henricus (Hein) Verbruggen have concealed cases of doping, received money for doing so, have accepted money from Lance Armstrong to conceal a doping case, have protected certain racing cyclists, concealed cases of doping, have engaged in manipulation, particularly of tests and races, have hesitated and delayed publishing the results of a positive test on Alberto Contador, have accepted bribes, are corrupt, are terrorists, have no regard for the rules, load the dice, are fools, do not have a genuine desire to restore discipline to cycling, are full of ****, are clowns, their words are worthless, are liars, and are no different to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.

amen!
10 char

 

[ChewbaccaD]

What about Toblerone? They're yummy

I love the Toblerone...they are dead to me now!

 

[ChewbaccaD]

i'm wearing a swiss watch

landis was not just late for the hearing he just did not show at all

can he just ignore the decision / not take out any adverts

would further fines follow?

He is not within their jurisdiction, so they have to get a California court to enforce this judgment. That will be difficult I believe.

 

[thirteen]

He is not within their jurisdiction, so they have to get a California court to enforce this judgment. That will be difficult I believe.

unless friends of Lance get ahold of it...

 

[Zora_DB]

News sources are all tweeting this as "Landis found guilty of defamation." WTF?

 

[thirteen]

News sources are all tweeting this as "Landis found guilty of defamation." WTF?

you can read the whole judgement here: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...inst-Landis-in-Swiss-UCI-defamation-case.aspx

 

[Zora_DB]

I've read it. My point is, he was not found guilty of anything. A default judgement can be considered to be a tacit admission of guilt, however it is not the same thing as a verdict of guilt, because the material facts of the case will not have been examined. No contest, no verdict.

 

[spetsa]

If Kimmage prevails in fighting what are basically similar claims, would that open up a new can of worms, for recourse against the UCI, as far as Floyd is concerned? FFF2?

 

[ToreBear]

I don't. That any jurisdiction in the world allows a defamation case based on the statements they have forbidden Floyd from making simply shows that the idea of free speech needs to be extended in those countries. Not only that, but it will be interesting to see if California enforces this judgment. I don't think they will, but it will be interesting to see how that plays out. Will the UCI try to have that judgment enforced here? I certainly hope so.

Arent you a law student, can't you find more out about the swiss system?

As far as I understand it, Landis did'nt put up a defence, hence the court was forced to rule against him.

Had he put up a defense things might have been different. If he want's perhaps he can appeal?

Anyway the Swiss and their legal system are subject to the European Court of Human Rights, and it's guarantees on free speech are expansive. And they have struck down heavily against limits to free speech before. Or legal systems allowing rich people to abuse their power in court.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLibel_case#European_Court_of_Human_Rights

I think there are many more cases.

Personally I would trust the European system to protect my rights to say what I think about an organization more than the US system.

 

[Zora_DB]

I don't know if he has any recourse unless he requests the grounds for the findings, which might make it impossible to then ignore the judgement. At the moment he can just go 'lalala' while Pat and Hein foam at the mouth, and you can see the attraction of that...

 

[ChewbaccaD]

What bothers me most is that my friends in England, Switzerland, and apparently any EU country cannot post the statement I posted, and the Swiss court forbade Landis from saying or publishing. They should be careful of quoting my post and agreeing with it. Because in those countries, free speech does not exist as it should. How do you expect to uncover corruption and illegalities with standards like that?

I also find it MOST interesting that the UCI, Pat McQuaid, and Henricus sued Landis and Kimmage and NOT the publications that printed the information. The cowardice of suing only those people who don't have the financial means to fight your suit is transparent. They know they would lose if someone had the money to fight them, so they sue those they know cannot fight.

I ask any reporter reading this, who has future access to ask questions of Mr. McQuaid or Henricus, to ask them why they didn't choose to sue the publications. Then ask them why it appears they have only gone after those who it appears don't have the money (thankfully, that is changing for Kimmage) to fight the case.

This makes me want to vomit. I cannot fathom a legal system allowing a suit like this to proceed, much less end in a verdict such as that. Unconscionable. I wish there were some way to get them to sue me. I'd love to be one of the objects of their suits.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Arent you a law student, can't you find more out about the swiss system?

As far as I understand it, Landis did'nt put up a defence, hence the court was forced to rule against him.

Had he put up a defense things might have been different. If he want's perhaps he can appeal?

Anyway the Swiss and their legal system are subject to the European Court of Human Rights, and it's guarantees on free speech are expansive. And they have struck down heavily against limits to free speech before. Or legal systems allowing rich people to abuse their power in court.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLibel_case#European_Court_of_Human_Rights

I think there are many more cases.

Personally I would trust the European system to protect my rights to say what I think about an organization more than the US system.

Yes, I am a law student, but I do not have access, nor the language skills to discern the standard used in that case. However, from the verdict, the standard appears pretty clear. The verdict imposes sanctions that are unconscionable.

As to your suggestion that you trust the European system more, here is my counter: That case would have never been allowed to proceed past a motion to dismiss here. It fails immediately. So you either don't know, or don't understand the protections we as US citizens have in regards to our right to free speech. That a case like that can proceed to verdict shows your system is weaker, and much less supportive of free speech rights. Period. End of story.

 

[MarkvW]

I don't. That any jurisdiction in the world allows a defamation case based on the statements they have forbidden Floyd from making simply shows that the idea of free speech needs to be extended in those countries. Not only that, but it will be interesting to see if California enforces this judgment. I don't think they will, but it will be interesting to see how that plays out. Will the UCI try to have that judgment enforced here? I certainly hope so.

I don't wish any more legal stuff on Floyd, other than a successful qui tam. That's more than enough.

Floyd can either bankrupt out of the Swiss judgment parts that require him to pay money OR use the qui tam proceeds (his one big asset) to pay it off OR remain judgment-proof. McBruggen won't hurt him. This is just symbolic BS.

And I think that Pat and Heinie can take their symbols and . . .

 

[Benotti69]

What bothers me most is that my friends in England, Switzerland, and apparently any EU country cannot post the statement I posted, and the Swiss court forbade Landis from saying or publishing. They should be careful of quoting my post and agreeing with it. Because in those countries, free speech does not exist as it should. How do you expect to uncover corruption and illegalities with standards like that?

I also find it MOST interesting that the UCI, Pat McQuaid, and Henricus sued Landis and Kimmage and NOT the publications that printed the information. The cowardice of suing only those people who don't have the financial means to fight your suit is transparent. They know they would lose if someone had the money to fight them, so they sue those they know cannot fight.

I ask any reporter reading this, who has future access to ask questions of Mr. McQuaid or Henricus, to ask them why they didn't choose to sue the publications. Then ask them why it appears they have only gone after those who it appears don't have the money (thankfully, that is changing for Kimmage) to fight the case.

This makes me want to vomit. I cannot fathom a legal system allowing a suit like this to proceed, much less end in a verdict such as that. Unconscionable. I wish there were some way to get them to sue me. I'd love to be one of the objects of their suits.

I agree.

I guess they will drop the suit against Kimmage to avoid as much negative media from it, but if it keeps gathering some momentum it might be very difficult for UCI.

Lets hope this really blows up in their face.

 

[LouieLouie]

As to your suggestion that you trust the European system more, here is my counter: That case would have never been allowed to proceed past a motion to dismiss here. It fails immediately. So you either don't know, or don't understand the protections we as US citizens have in regards to our right to free speech. That a case like that can proceed to verdict shows your system is weaker, and much less supportive of free speech rights. Period. End of story.

In most European countries you don't have to care whether it's dismissed or not, as there will be no case in the first place.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I don't wish any more legal stuff on Floyd, other than a successful qui tam. That's more than enough.

Floyd can either bankrupt out of the Swiss judgment parts that require him to pay money OR use the qui tam proceeds (his one big asset) to pay it off OR remain judgment-proof. McBruggen won't hurt him. This is just symbolic BS.

And I think that Pat and Heinie can take their symbols and . . .

I don't think there is a clear case of personal jurisdiction (even if he did make the statements in Germany), so I don't think the judgment being enforced is at all likely. California will not enforce if there was no PJ, and I don't think there was. That was a Swiss court. They are going to have a hard time at getting to any of Floyd's assets. He can find a law school in California with a civil rights clinic to fight that case.

 

[Zora_DB]

Lets hope this really blows up in their face.

Seriously, the majority of reports seem to be repeating the Reuters headline, which runs basically along the lines of 'disgraced cyclist found guilty of defamation'. UCI coming out smelling of roses, to everyone who doesn't read the judgement for themselves.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

In most European countries you don't have to care whether it's dismissed or not, as there will be no case in the first place.

Well, evidently, in Switzerland, the case is perfectly fine. I am also pretty certain that it would be allowed in the UK also. What I want to know about is Germany. Would this case be allowed to proceed in Germany? Because if not (and I am pretty sure there is a case even if they would allow a suit like that), then the Swiss court had no personal jurisdiction. With no PJ, you get nothing. The only way they can enforce the judgment here is to petition a California court, and then the real fun can begin.

 

[Nick C.]

I would like to see more than just the headline stipulations. If Landis never appeared or defended himself wouldn't the "victory" be on default. Which in most instances means the Court does not parse the plaintiff's complaint but just grants them the relief sought on default (ie: not on the merits which would require two sides contesting the matter). So in other words it means nothing but that is not how the half story will be told.