XZTT v Anti-Doping Rule Violation Tribunal

[Realist]

I don't think this is an good reflection of the law. You may not be liable but those that publish it in Australia are liable. The law is clear on that point.

Yes, if liability would obtain for naming the rider this is true, and you could also be liable if you published overseas and it was read in Australia, but enforcement would be problematic if the individual or organisation had no assets in Australia, so that is of little practical relevance. But it's not clear at all that any liability exists for naming the rider. Can you give the language in the injunction where it forbids naming the rider?

So how does this contribute to a discussion of the issues, or to the resolution of the problems of maladministration that beset cycling?

Understanding the individual circumstances of the rider might help in ways that we might not know about if the name was suppressed. Furthermore, it is standard policy to name riders in this circumstance. That is what the various agencies and their codes maps out. The real question here is, how does suppressing the name improve the discussion? Why is this a special case, requiring an exemption?

 

[Martin Hardie]

If an Australian goes and reads the name on Joe Papp's twitter are they breaking the law?
Is Twitter breaking the law by allowing Joe Papp's tweet to be read in Australia?

Publicat ion by Twitter in Australia as with publication here would be in breach of the law.

It's interesting to also see some forum members are so tied up with their own ma infest destiny that they think 1.cn is an American web site and 2 they enlist us imperialism as their excuse. And the wonder why the US is so hated.

 

[Martin Hardie]

Yes, if liability would obtain for naming the rider this is true, and you could also be liable if you published overseas and it was read in Australia, but enforcement would be problematic if the individual or organisation had no assets in Australia, so that is of little practical relevance. But it's not clear at all that any liability exists for naming the rider. Can you give the language in the injunction where it forbids naming the rider?



Understanding the individual circumstances of the rider might help in ways that we might not know about if the name was suppressed. Furthermore, it is standard policy to name riders in this circumstance. That is what the various agencies and their codes maps out. The real question here is, how does suppressing the name improve the discussion? Why is this a special case, requiring an exemption?

The paragraph of the order was posted by shortleg. The default position of the law in Australia is confidentiality in doping matters. There needs to be a public interest to name. In fact CAS rules are the same.

If a case had been the subje ct of such procedural errors would you want your name planted all over the news ?

 

[Martin Hardie]

When an administrative body's maladministration benefits a particular rider, the logical possibility of corruption exists. That is a fair subject of discussion and you can't have that discussion without discussing the rider himself/herself.

Another issue was an issue that you yourself raised. When you tried to suppress the discussion of your client's name, you made that attempt at suppressing speech into an issue.

Your client is now participating in this discussion, through you. You have opened the door to fair comment.

Fair comment is not comment in breach of a legal order. The issues are what matte rs not the name. Have ou ever noticed that the problems of cycling are not about bad individuals but are systemic? Here is a chance to discuss that but the clinic is mostly concerned with outing a rider? It begs the question whether it is salacious gossip or change you want?

The issued about the name and confidentiality was raised by shortleg. Another thread was shut down for discussing the name. It has got nothing to do with fair comment

 

[Martin Hardie]

Hello Martin. I guess nothing is private on the net.

http://theconversation.edu.au/why-didnt-cycling-australia-smell-the-doping-stench-10313

Yes and what is the point?

 

[Realist]

The paragraph of the order was posted by shortleg. The default position of the law in Australia is confidentiality in doping matters. There needs to be a public interest to name. In fact CAS rules are the same.

If a case had been the subje ct of such procedural errors would you want your name planted all over the news ?

That paragraph makes no orders with respect to third parties and is not an injunction. When you refer to confidentiality as the default position of the law on doping in Australia, what are your authorities for that? The default under the WADA code and the default position adopted by ASADA is that publication is in the public interest. 4.22 appears to preserve broad discretion for ASADA in making that judgment, and the language in the XZTT judgment is easily distinguished from a discussion of public interest under 4.22. Your assertion is not the law, but I will read with interest if you actually back up what you are saying with authorities or legislation. As you have repeatedly failed to do so, I can only conclude your position is pretty weak. Again, I will revisit that conclusion if you actually cite some law.

 

[Realist]

Publicat ion by Twitter in Australia as with publication here would be in breach of the law.

It's interesting to also see some forum members are so tied up with their own ma infest destiny that they think 1.cn is an American web site and 2 they enlist us imperialism as their excuse. And the wonder why the US is so hated.

I personally would not choose an ideologue as a lawyer.

 

[MarkvW]

Fair comment is not comment in breach of a legal order. The issues are what matte rs not the name. Have ou ever noticed that the problems of cycling are not about bad individuals but are systemic? Here is a chance to discuss that but the clinic is mostly concerned with outing a rider? It begs the question whether it is salacious gossip or change you want?

The issued about the name and confidentiality was raised by shortleg. Another thread was shut down for discussing the name. It has got nothing to do with fair comment

Has anybody seen the "legal order" that this guy is talking about?

 

[palmerq]

so whats going on here :S is no one meant to be posting this fellows name ? or even working out which rider it is from a list of 5 or so?

 

[skidmark]

Fair comment is not comment in breach of a legal order. The issues are what matte rs not the name. Have ou ever noticed that the problems of cycling are not about bad individuals but are systemic? Here is a chance to discuss that but the clinic is mostly concerned with outing a rider? It begs the question whether it is salacious gossip or change you want?

The issued about the name and confidentiality was raised by shortleg. Another thread was shut down for discussing the name. It has got nothing to do with fair comment

Why is confidentiality so important? I'm not sure I understand why it's important that his name remain confidential, even if that is a right of his. I mean, simply if it's a right of his, and he wishes it to be so, then fine, I can respect people's wishes. I'd much rather, as you state, discuss the issue at hand.

But when you come on here, in a public forum, and directly threaten the anonymous forum participants with melodramatic phrases like 'have you ever spent time in jail? It's not nice'... well, that's maybe kinda sorta escalating the issue. If the technical issue is with the website, send your email to the website, have them shut down the thread, maybe state 'the rider wishes to exercise his right to confidentiality so I've requested that the website shut down this thread and any other speculation as to the rider's name' and then great, you're done. To come on and play bad cop, trying to use scare tactics to some anonymous internet person from who knows where, strikes me as startlingly unprofessional.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I find it ironic that Joe Papp can shut down a thread with legal threats, after being a bit of a doink and selling someone's anonymous identity to LA.

But a rider gets shafted by UCI and everyone does their level best to out the anonymous rider.

What gives? And the anon rider's lawyer's response is irrelevant - it's not what started the outing.

 

[BroDeal]

I find it ironic that Joe Papp can shut down a thread with legal threats, after being a bit of a doink and selling someone's anonymous identity to LA.

But a rider gets shafted by UCI and everyone does their level best to out the anonymous rider.

What gives? And the anon rider's lawyer's response is irrelevant - it's not what started the outing.

I know everyone wants this to look like David vs. Goliath, but how did this fool get shafted? He got caught sniffin' blow. Because the UCI did not inform him in a timely manner, he got off the hook. He did not get shafted. He got lucky.

 

[skidmark]

I find it ironic that Joe Papp can shut down a thread with legal threats, after being a bit of a doink and selling someone's anonymous identity to LA.

But a rider gets shafted by UCI and everyone does their level best to out the anonymous rider.

What gives? And the anon rider's lawyer's response is irrelevant - it's not what started the outing.

what do those situations have to do with each other? How is that ironic? The original thread trying to out the rider WAS shut down with legal threats. So those situations are consistent, so it seems to me, not ironic.

And in the Papp case there was nothing to 'out' so I don't get how the forum's reaction can be related to this case. I might be missing something in your logic, though.

Agreed that people were trying to identify said rider before legal threats were made, but the response made it into an issue about censorship and got people's backs up. If it wasn't contested in the first place, rider would have his name known, over and done with. If it had been dealt with by a simple request for confidentiality, I believe that would have been replied to with more respect.

Anyway, I think we're maybe in agreement that we couldn't care less who this guy is. Let's go discuss more important things in other threads (like Wiggins' finish placings in GTs in 2006 )

 

[Dear Wiggo]

what do those situations have to do with each other? How is that ironic? The original thread trying to out the rider WAS shut down with legal threats. So those situations are consistent, so it seems to me, not ironic.

And in the Papp case there was nothing to 'out' so I don't get how the forum's reaction can be related to this case. I might be missing something in your logic, though.

Agreed that people were trying to identify said rider before legal threats were made, but the response made it into an issue about censorship and got people's backs up. If it wasn't contested in the first place, rider would have his name known, over and done with. If it had been dealt with by a simple request for confidentiality, I believe that would have been replied to with more respect.

Anyway, I think we're maybe in agreement that we couldn't care less who this guy is. Let's go discuss more important things in other threads (like Wiggins' finish placings in GTs in 2006 )

The irony is Race Radio wanted to be anonymous, and when Papp outed him (allegedly) to LA, everyone, and I mean everyone went apeshet at Papp.

Now someone outs or tries to out a rider who is anonymous and wishes to remain that way, given the unfairness of his treatment by the UCI, and everyone, almost, wants to out him.

If that doesn't make the irony clearer, I doubt I can do better.

Only one person responded to my question re:

I do cocaine - no worries mate.
I don't dope - that's bad.

Which is actually discussing an issue, but noone (bar Realist) was interested in discussing.

People are only interested in outing an anonymous rider.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I don't think heroin should be on the banned list. I mean, if you can bang up, chase the dragon, or snort it and still ride your bike, they should give you a special jersey. A long sleeve jersey, but still...

 

[Realist]

I know everyone wants this to look like David vs. Goliath, but how did this fool get shafted? He got caught sniffin' blow. Because the UCI did not inform him in a timely manner, he got off the hook. He did not get shafted. He got lucky.

He didn't actually get off the hook. The various AD authorities got slapped down, but an adverse analytical finding was still registered against the rider.

 

[alanshearer]

That paragraph makes no orders with respect to third parties and is not an injunction. When you refer to confidentiality as the default position of the law on doping in Australia, what are your authorities for that? The default under the WADA code and the default position adopted by ASADA is that publication is in the public interest. 4.22 appears to preserve broad discretion for ASADA in making that judgment, and the language in the XZTT judgment is easily distinguished from a discussion of public interest under 4.22. Your assertion is not the law, but I will read with interest if you actually back up what you are saying with authorities or legislation. As you have repeatedly failed to do so, I can only conclude your position is pretty weak. Again, I will revisit that conclusion if you actually cite some law.

Martin Hardie is a liar, misrepresenting a "court order."

And David Kemp is the rider in question.

Now, we can move on.

 

[MarkvW]

The irony is Race Radio wanted to be anonymous, and when Papp outed him (allegedly) to LA, everyone, and I mean everyone went apeshet at Papp.

Now someone outs or tries to out a rider who is anonymous and wishes to remain that way, given the unfairness of his treatment by the UCI, and everyone, almost, wants to out him.

If that doesn't make the irony clearer, I doubt I can do better.

Only one person responded to my question re:

I do cocaine - no worries mate.
I don't dope - that's bad.

Which is actually discussing an issue, but noone (bar Realist) was interested in discussing.

People are only interested in outing an anonymous rider.

Martin Hardie's offensive tactics blew the thing up. Otherwise it would have been quickly forgotten.