If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ESPN)   Sunday Times is suing Lance Armstrong for the return of the money plus interest and court fees that they lost to him in a 2004 libel case over claims of performance-enhancing drug use   (espn.go.com) divider line 40
    More: Interesting, libel, United States Anti-Doping Agency, interests  
•       •       •

1141 clicks; posted to Sports » on 23 Dec 2012 at 2:08 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



40 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-12-23 12:26:00 PM
Yah, ask all the men that later proved they aren't the father of a kid they're on hook for child support how that turns out.
 
2012-12-23 01:16:54 PM

OregonVet: Yah, ask all the men that later proved they aren't the father of a kid they're on hook for child support how that turns out.


Is that true?  Serious question...
 
2012-12-23 01:25:35 PM
Mudoch vs armstrong

Can they both lose?
 
2012-12-23 01:28:10 PM
Lance has a better chance of getting his nut back
 
2012-12-23 01:38:40 PM
Geez.

Dude may as well grab the last of the money he's got and high-tail it to Bolivia or something, while giving the rest of the world the finger.
 
2012-12-23 01:50:52 PM

downstairs: OregonVet: Yah, ask all the men that later proved they aren't the father of a kid they're on hook for child support how that turns out.

Is that true?  Serious question...


Oh, yes.  "Best interests of the child" and all.
 
2012-12-23 01:57:56 PM
Is there a legal precedence for this?  Seems a bit dodgy.
 
2012-12-23 02:10:43 PM
If it was true, it wasn't libel.
 
2012-12-23 02:13:42 PM

downstairs: OregonVet: Yah, ask all the men that later proved they aren't the father of a kid they're on hook for child support how that turns out.

Is that true?  Serious question...


Yeah, it's true.

Once a man claims fatherhood of a kid, if it turns out that the mother had lied, the guy who accepted the responsibility is stuck for 18 years. The courts will alway decide that the kids wealfare is far more important than actual justice.

There have been incidents where single women would bed a rich guy, while pregnant with their poor boyfriend kid. Then hit the rich guy up for child support.
 
2012-12-23 02:16:32 PM

slayer199: Is there a legal precedence for this?  Seems a bit dodgy.


Don't know.. It's British law. From what I understand, it's a lot easier for a libel suit to be successful than in the United States.
 
2012-12-23 02:17:13 PM
Bwahahaha.
 
2012-12-23 02:24:12 PM
I'm sort of torn here.  I assume they got nailed for libel because they ran a negative story without enough (or any) real facts.  That's still libel.
 
2012-12-23 02:37:35 PM
In a way, I hope it goes to trial.

The USADA still violated its own statute of limitations, using samples of questionable validity, and refused to allow in outside experts.

What? Axe to grind?

Probably.
 
2012-12-23 02:42:00 PM

downstairs: I'm sort of torn here.  I assume they got nailed for libel because they ran a negative story without enough (or any) real facts.  That's still libel.


Yeah, I don't care if it's true now. They ran a story with zero evidence and happened to be right. They just weren't right soon enough to keep from being sued.
 
2012-12-23 02:47:07 PM
Doesn't seem like they have much of a case against Armstrong since they settled out of court.  If they lost in court, and especially if Armstrong had committed perjury, then it would be a different story.
 
2012-12-23 02:49:47 PM

Darth_Lukecash: slayer199: Is there a legal precedence for this?  Seems a bit dodgy.

Don't know.. It's British law. From what I understand, it's a lot easier for a libel suit to be successful than in the United States.


IANAL, but I think the big difference is that, under US precedent, you have to prove that the person making the statement knew that they were making a false statement. A person could say "Ben Affleck killed a hooker in 1997," they'd be fine, so long as they could demonstrate that they believed that statement to be true.

Under British precedent, however, believing a false statement to be true is not a defense against defamation charges. The only thing that matters is if the statement is false and, generally, the defense actually required to prove that the statement is true. This is why the sexual abuse allegations against Jimmy Savile didn't really come to light until after his death. Several media outlets had heard allegations and interviewed witnesses, but they didn't take them to press because they were afraid of libel suits.

In this particular case, I don't know how successful the Sunday Times is going to be, since they still have to prove either Armstrong took PEDs or that he perjured himself during the trial. Since Armstrong has never admitted PED use and the standards for evidence for the US Anti-Doping Agency are less than the standards for the British courts, I have a hard time seeing them win this case.
 
2012-12-23 02:57:10 PM

MagicBus: Doesn't seem like they have much of a case against Armstrong since they settled out of court.  If they lost in court, and especially if Armstrong had committed perjury, then it would be a different story.


Yeah, I missed that. According to Wikipedia:

"Allegations in the book were reprinted in the UK newspaper The Sunday Times in a story by deputy sports editor Alan English in June 2004. Armstrong sued for libel, and the paper settled out of court after a High Court judge in a pre-trial ruling stated that the article "meant accusation of guilt and not simply reasonable grounds to suspect."[71] The newspaper's lawyers issued the statement: "The Sunday Times has confirmed to Mr. Armstrong that it never intended to accuse him of being guilty of taking any performance-enhancing drugs and sincerely apologized for any such impression.""
 
2012-12-23 03:12:49 PM
I want to see HBO produce a mini series on Lance Armstrong. I can't think of a bigger rise and fall in american sports history.
 
2012-12-23 03:25:05 PM

Coolfusis: downstairs: I'm sort of torn here.  I assume they got nailed for libel because they ran a negative story without enough (or any) real facts.  That's still libel.

Yeah, I don't care if it's true now. They ran a story with zero evidence and happened to be right. They just weren't right soon enough to keep from being sued.


Or you could RTFA and see they quoted a book. The book is a source. The existence of the book is, itself, a news story. Newspapers routinely quote sources rather than making naked allegations, and in almost every country in the world that's a shield from libel claims.

MagicBus: Doesn't seem like they have much of a case against Armstrong since they settled out of court.  If they lost in court, and especially if Armstrong had committed perjury, then it would be a different story.


Agreed. Settlements have to be respected, and if there were grounds to undo them every time new evidence emerged, there would never be settlements.
 
2012-12-23 04:28:56 PM
Sheesh. You'd think there was some actual proof against Armstrong and not just hearsay and allegation.
 
2012-12-23 04:53:33 PM

downstairs: OregonVet: Yah, ask all the men that later proved they aren't the father of a kid they're on hook for child support how that turns out.

Is that true?  Serious question...


Its even worse then you think. Even if you can prove you are not the father you are still hooked for the payments until the kid turns 18.
 
2012-12-23 05:24:08 PM

Warlordtrooper: downstairs: OregonVet: Yah, ask all the men that later proved they aren't the father of a kid they're on hook for child support how that turns out.

Is that true?  Serious question...

Its even worse then you think. Even if you can prove you are not the father you are still hooked for the payments until the kid turns 18.


And it's on you to sue the biological father. Good luck with that. DNA tests should be automatic.
 
2012-12-23 05:29:02 PM
Can't see this as going anywhere. if Murdoch did win it would set a dangerous precedent.
 
2012-12-23 05:29:46 PM

downstairs: I'm sort of torn here.  I assume they got nailed for libel because they ran a negative story without enough (or any) real facts.  That's still libel.


Defamation law in the UK is very, very different than defamation law in the U.S. They don't have a First Amendment there, and truth is not a defense to libel allegations.
 
2012-12-23 05:35:10 PM

Super Chronic: Or you could RTFA and see they quoted a book. The book is a source. The existence of the book is, itself, a news story. Newspapers routinely quote sources rather than making naked allegations, and in almost every country in the world that's a shield from libel claims.


If you read the Wikipedia article the newspaper didn't quote the source, they made the statement themselves and used the book as proof. That "proof" didn't have any evidence to back up its claim. It's the difference from saying "A book accuses Armstrong of doping" to "Armstrong doped, this book is proof". If they did the former they would of been fine.

It's the same reason why its not libel to say someone was arrested for XXX but it is libel to say that the person arrested was a XXX.


The Times is screwed because its an out of court settlement. If they went to court and got found guilty becasue Armstrong purgered himself then they might have a case but they didn't.
 
2012-12-23 06:02:35 PM

bubbaprog: downstairs: I'm sort of torn here.  I assume they got nailed for libel because they ran a negative story without enough (or any) real facts.  That's still libel.

Defamation law in the UK is very, very different than defamation law in the U.S. They don't have a First Amendment there, and truth is not a defense to libel allegations.


Yes it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law
 
2012-12-23 06:04:56 PM

rugman11: Ben Affleck killed a hooker in 1997


Ben Affleck has been hanging out with Craig James?
 
2012-12-23 06:33:17 PM
Super Chronic
... The book is a source. The existence of the book is, itself, a news story. Newspapers routinely quote sources rather than making naked allegations, and in almost every country in the world that's a shield from libel claims.

The United States is not one of those countries. If you present it as fact you are just as liable as the original libeler. That's why newspapers use the magic word "allegedly."
 
2012-12-23 06:44:16 PM

Dear Jerk: Super Chronic
... The book is a source. The existence of the book is, itself, a news story. Newspapers routinely quote sources rather than making naked allegations, and in almost every country in the world that's a shield from libel claims.

The United States is not one of those countries. If you present it as fact you are just as liable as the original libeler. That's why newspapers use the magic word "allegedly."


You misunderstood me. Kosher in the US: "Such-and-such book says Lance Armstrong doped." Not kosher in the US: "Lance Armstrong doped. Such-and-such book says so." (Although Armstrong needs to meet the legal standard of actual malice in the US, which is a very difficult obstacle for a public figure to surmount.) But it's utterly irrelevant because this was in the UK, where even the first formulation might not have been good enough.
 
2012-12-23 07:37:03 PM

TheZorker: In a way, I hope it goes to trial.

The USADA still violated its own statute of limitations, using samples of questionable validity, and refused to allow in outside experts.

What? Axe to grind?

Probably.


Of course. So far, Lance Armstrong hasn't been found guilty of anything. He just hasn't continued to fight this stupidity, and so everyone with a grudge has been piling on because apparently silence equals guilt.
 
2012-12-23 08:08:01 PM
img2.timeinc.net

Should have called him a "motherfarker" and "asshole".
 
2012-12-23 08:58:07 PM
31 comments and no, "take his ball and go home" jokes?

Slackers.
 
2012-12-23 09:59:02 PM

FormlessOne: TheZorker: In a way, I hope it goes to trial.

The USADA still violated its own statute of limitations, using samples of questionable validity, and refused to allow in outside experts.

What? Axe to grind?

Probably.

Of course. So far, Lance Armstrong hasn't been found guilty of anything. He just hasn't continued to fight this stupidity, and so everyone with a grudge has been piling on because apparently silence equals guilt.


/salute
 
2012-12-23 10:03:37 PM

MagicBus: Doesn't seem like they have much of a case against Armstrong since they settled out of court.  If they lost in court, and especially if Armstrong had committed perjury, then it would be a different story.


That is probably what will sink them. Ultimately the point of settling is that the case goes away without anyone admitting guilt or blame and more importantly without the govt putting forth it's opinion on the matter. Companies settle so that a judge or jury never officially says they were at fault. Without that judgment there isn't anything for a court to reverse really.
 
2012-12-23 11:13:04 PM

OregonVet: Yah, ask all the men that later proved they aren't the father of a kid they're on hook for child support how that turns out.


7chan.org
 
2012-12-24 09:00:53 AM

FormlessOne: TheZorker: In a way, I hope it goes to trial.

The USADA still violated its own statute of limitations, using samples of questionable validity, and refused to allow in outside experts.

What? Axe to grind?

Probably.

Of course. So far, Lance Armstrong hasn't been found guilty of anything. He just hasn't continued to fight this stupidity, and so everyone with a grudge has been piling on because apparently silence equals guilt.


Exactly.
 
2012-12-24 09:26:17 AM

cretinbob: OregonVet: Yah, ask all the men that later proved they aren't the father of a kid they're on hook for child support how that turns out.

[7chan.org image 489x400]


You should consider reading sometime. Perhaps even do a little research. Won't take you long to find facts. Dickhead.
 
2012-12-24 09:35:26 AM

Darth_Lukecash: downstairs: OregonVet: Yah, ask all the men that later proved they aren't the father of a kid they're on hook for child support how that turns out.

Is that true?  Serious question...

Yeah, it's true.

Once a man claims fatherhood of a kid, if it turns out that the mother had lied, the guy who accepted the responsibility is stuck for 18 years. The courts will alway decide that the kids wealfare is far more important than actual justice.

There have been incidents where single women would bed a rich guy, while pregnant with their poor boyfriend kid. Then hit the rich guy up for child support.


Really? Prove it. Women would never, EVER, do that. Especially the women the basement dwellers here on Fark fap to.
 
2012-12-24 10:17:10 AM

rugman11: Darth_Lukecash: slayer199: Is there a legal precedence for this?  Seems a bit dodgy.

Don't know.. It's British law. From what I understand, it's a lot easier for a libel suit to be successful than in the United States.

IANAL, but I think the big difference is that, under US precedent, you have to prove that the person making the statement knew that they were making a false statement. A person could say "Ben Affleck killed a hooker in 1997," they'd be fine, so long as they could demonstrate that they believed that statement to be true.

Under British precedent, however, believing a false statement to be true is not a defense against defamation charges. The only thing that matters is if the statement is false and, generally, the defense actually required to prove that the statement is true. This is why the sexual abuse allegations against Jimmy Savile didn't really come to light until after his death. Several media outlets had heard allegations and interviewed witnesses, but they didn't take them to press because they were afraid of libel suits.

In this particular case, I don't know how successful the Sunday Times is going to be, since they still have to prove either Armstrong took PEDs or that he perjured himself during the trial. Since Armstrong has never admitted PED use and the standards for evidence for the US Anti-Doping Agency are less than the standards for the British courts, I have a hard time seeing them win this case.


Lets stick to the facts for any arguments. When it comes to hookers getting killed it was Craig James and he killed 5 hookers while at SMU(allegedly).
 
2012-12-24 08:39:39 PM
one is dirty.....................the other clean!
news.bbcimg.co.uk
 
Displayed 40 of 40 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report