Bad news for the Lance bashers

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?...sep10newsflash

Armstrong vindicated in Anderson judgement; Le Monde defamation case
dismissed


http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/8854.0.html

Armstrong also celebrates win in Anderson case
By Agence France Presse
This report filed September 9, 2005
Seven-time Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong celebrated a legal
victory and a UCI statement of support Friday, capping a busy week that
included his engagement and hints at a 2006 comeback.

Looks like one of the key people everyone has been using to point at
lance has been dumped. How many of you are going to admit you were
wrong. I expect to hear a ****load about corrupt Texas justice, rather
than "We were wrong for believing this guy".
Bill C

Bill C wrote:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?...sep10newsflash


"Tim Herman, Armstrong's attorney in Austin, Texas explained to
Cyclingnews that Texas State District Judge Margaret Cooper ruled in
favour of [Armstrong and his personal management company Luke David
LLC] with a motion for summary judgement that has dismissed Mike
Andersons' claims of breach of contract and that Armstrong has
defrauded the former Austin bike shop employee who served as
Armstrong's paid dogsbody from 2002-2004."

His 'paid dogsbody'?? WTF is that?

Mike Bruno wrote:

His 'paid dogsbody'?? WTF is that?

Dumbass:

It's someone who gets paid to be a dogsbody instead of doing it for free.

Robert Chung wrote:
Mike Bruno wrote:

His 'paid dogsbody'?? WTF is that?

Dumbass:

It's someone who gets paid to be a dogsbody instead of doing it for free.

Smartass,

I like your style.

"Bill C" wrote in message
oups.com...
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?...sep10newsflash

Armstrong vindicated in Anderson judgement; Le Monde defamation case
dismissed


http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/8854.0.html

Armstrong also celebrates win in Anderson case
By Agence France Presse
This report filed September 9, 2005
Seven-time Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong celebrated a legal
victory and a UCI statement of support Friday, capping a busy week that
included his engagement and hints at a 2006 comeback.

Looks like one of the key people everyone has been using to point at
lance has been dumped. How many of you are going to admit you were
wrong. I expect to hear a ****load about corrupt Texas justice, rather
than "We were wrong for believing this guy".
Bill C

It's my understanding that the Anderson case involved a decision on a motion
for summary judgment. The court decided that there was no valid contract
between Armstrong and Anderson as a matter of law assuming the validity of
the facts set forth by Anderson as to the existence of an enforceable
contract under Texas law. As discussed here at rbr months ago, this was not
a strong case absent a signed contract and the parole evidence rule. The
decision on the motion probably does not pass judgment on the veracity of
Anderson's allegations as to finding steroids in Armstrong's medicine
cabinet or his drug conversations with Armstrong vis a vis Museeuw.

Perhaps Sandy can comment on the French libel action by Simeoni. I suspect
the French court may have dismissed in view of the existing action for libel
against Armstrong that Simeoni has ongoing in Italy.

B. Lafferty wrote:
"Bill C" wrote in message
oups.com...
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?...sep10newsflash

Armstrong vindicated in Anderson judgement; Le Monde defamation case
dismissed


http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/8854.0.html

Armstrong also celebrates win in Anderson case
By Agence France Presse
This report filed September 9, 2005
Seven-time Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong celebrated a legal
victory and a UCI statement of support Friday, capping a busy week that
included his engagement and hints at a 2006 comeback.

Looks like one of the key people everyone has been using to point at
lance has been dumped. How many of you are going to admit you were
wrong. I expect to hear a ****load about corrupt Texas justice, rather
than "We were wrong for believing this guy".
Bill C

It's my understanding that the Anderson case involved a decision on a motion
for summary judgment. The court decided that there was no valid contract
between Armstrong and Anderson as a matter of law assuming the validity of
the facts set forth by Anderson as to the existence of an enforceable
contract under Texas law. As discussed here at rbr months ago, this was not
a strong case absent a signed contract and the parole evidence rule. The
decision on the motion probably does not pass judgment on the veracity of
Anderson's allegations as to finding steroids in Armstrong's medicine
cabinet or his drug conversations with Armstrong vis a vis Museeuw.

Perhaps Sandy can comment on the French libel action by Simeoni. I suspect
the French court may have dismissed in view of the existing action for libel
against Armstrong that Simeoni has ongoing in Italy.
Brian we'll have to see what happens but IMO Anderson is a borderline
extortionist, given his unsupported calims of Lance using drugs, which
only came out after Lance denied his demands.
The crap with Simeoni is a ridiculous extension of political
correctness to sport. Postal has chased down how many breaks over the
years? How many other teams have chased down riders because they don't
like them? I'd bet a lot. That's a fact of the sport. Making it illegal
to chase daown people you personally dislike is the worst kind of PC
bull****.
Bill C

B. Lafferty wrote:

The
decision on the motion probably does not pass judgment on the veracity of
Anderson's allegations as to finding steroids in Armstrong's medicine
cabinet




Dumbass -

Anderson couldn't even recall what the name of the "drug" was. What
"veracity" is there in an allegation of that calibre?


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

"Kurgan Gringioni" a écrit dans le message de
ups.com...

B. Lafferty wrote:

The
decision on the motion probably does not pass judgment on the veracity
of
Anderson's allegations as to finding steroids in Armstrong's medicine
cabinet




Dumbass -

Anderson couldn't even recall what the name of the "drug" was. What
"veracity" is there in an allegation of that calibre?

He also didn't tell anybody of what he saw, even his wife, until months
later. Not very convincing, either.

"Bill C" wrote in message
ups.com...

B. Lafferty wrote:
"Bill C" wrote in message
oups.com...
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?...sep10newsflash

Armstrong vindicated in Anderson judgement; Le Monde defamation case
dismissed


http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/8854.0.html

Armstrong also celebrates win in Anderson case
By Agence France Presse
This report filed September 9, 2005
Seven-time Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong celebrated a legal
victory and a UCI statement of support Friday, capping a busy week that
included his engagement and hints at a 2006 comeback.

Looks like one of the key people everyone has been using to point at
lance has been dumped. How many of you are going to admit you were
wrong. I expect to hear a ****load about corrupt Texas justice, rather
than "We were wrong for believing this guy".
Bill C

It's my understanding that the Anderson case involved a decision on a
motion
for summary judgment. The court decided that there was no valid contract
between Armstrong and Anderson as a matter of law assuming the validity
of
the facts set forth by Anderson as to the existence of an enforceable
contract under Texas law. As discussed here at rbr months ago, this was
not
a strong case absent a signed contract and the parole evidence rule. The
decision on the motion probably does not pass judgment on the veracity of
Anderson's allegations as to finding steroids in Armstrong's medicine
cabinet or his drug conversations with Armstrong vis a vis Museeuw.

Perhaps Sandy can comment on the French libel action by Simeoni. I
suspect
the French court may have dismissed in view of the existing action for
libel
against Armstrong that Simeoni has ongoing in Italy.

Brian we'll have to see what happens but IMO Anderson is a borderline
extortionist, given his unsupported calims of Lance using drugs, which
only came out after Lance denied his demands.

Anderson may well not be credible as a witness. However, the court did not
rule on the issue of witness credibility in a decision for summary judgment.
Until he is examined under oath we won't be able to fully assess his
credibility.

The crap with Simeoni is a ridiculous extension of political
correctness to sport. Postal has chased down how many breaks over the
years? How many other teams have chased down riders because they don't
like them? I'd bet a lot. That's a fact of the sport. Making it illegal
to chase daown people you personally dislike is the worst kind of PC
bull****.

Nobody has made it "illegal" to chase down any opponent. Armstrong was
criticised by a number of his fellow professionals for allowing a personal
dispute to intrude into the affairs of the Tour. How many riders are chased
down by people they are suiing for defamation?

Bill C

B. Lafferty wrote:
"Bill C" wrote in message


snipped

The crap with Simeoni is a ridiculous extension of political
correctness to sport. Postal has chased down how many breaks over the
years? How many other teams have chased down riders because they don't
like them? I'd bet a lot. That's a fact of the sport. Making it illegal
to chase daown people you personally dislike is the worst kind of PC
bull****.

Nobody has made it "illegal" to chase down any opponent. Armstrong was
criticised by a number of his fellow professionals for allowing a personal
dispute to intrude into the affairs of the Tour. How many riders are chased
down by people they are suiing for defamation?

If I remember right Simeoni went into court whining about intimidation
after that incident and they took it seriously, that's crap IMO. It
really doesn't matter why, an athlete forms a grudge against another
and targets them. That happens for a lot of reasons. Armstrong never
stopped him from competing, attempting to win, never broke the rules to
create a negative impact against Simeoni. All he did was make it clear
that he would compete against Simeoni within the rules of the race. I
don't think that it was a really smart decision on Lance's part because
Simeoni isn't even in the same league for talent, but it's not wrong.
Simeoni had exactly the same oppourtunity as any other riders to
attempt to ride Lance off his wheel and win. Lance did nothing to deny
him the right to fair, and open competition. If Lance told him he'd
never let him win, so what? I didn't know there was a rule or law
saying that certain riders were to be gifted race or stage wins. I
thought they had to be earned.
I have no opinion on Simeoni's defamation case, but to bring what
happened on the road into court is bull****. Even if Lance went on a
vendetta, and raced every single race that Simeoni did, just because he
wanted to stop him from winning, this still wouldn't be wrong because
Simeoni has exactly the same chance to win any race, by the rules, as
Lance.
Bill C