"Reason to Suspect"

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/?id=...ul05/jul30news

Blow for Armstrong in Sunday Times suit
Lance Armstrong's lawsuit against London's Sunday Times has lost some steam
after Great Britain's Court of Appeal ruled that the newspaper was entitled
to publish a story that alleged that the Texan had used illegal performance
enhancing drugs. On Friday, the Court of Appeal's three-judge panel
overturned a High Court decision that had previously ruled against the
Sunday Times. The case is set to continue, as the newspaper is now allowed
to present its defence as to why it felt it was in the public interest to
publish the contentious piece. A date for the trial has not been set,
however.

The original article was based on the book L.A. Confidentiel, co-authored by
David Walsh and Pierre Ballester, which contained a number of stories
collected from former associates of Armstrong that tried to paint a picture
of him using illegal methods to boost performance. However, no hard proof
was given in the book, and after publication, David Walsh admitted that it
was all circumstantial evidence.

In a separate case, just after the book's publication, a Parisian court
ruled against Armstrong's desire for a rebuttal be included in the book,
saying that he was given the opportunity to respond by the authors, but
declined.

B. Lafferty wrote:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/?id=...ul05/jul30news

Blow for Armstrong in Sunday Times suit
Lance Armstrong's lawsuit against London's Sunday Times has lost some steam
after Great Britain's Court of Appeal ruled that the newspaper was entitled
to publish a story that alleged that the Texan had used illegal performance
enhancing drugs. On Friday, the Court of Appeal's three-judge panel
overturned a High Court decision that had previously ruled against the
Sunday Times. The case is set to continue, as the newspaper is now allowed
to present its defence as to why it felt it was in the public interest to
publish the contentious piece. A date for the trial has not been set,
however.

As a lawyer, I'm sure these legal cases are very interesting to you.
But, please satisfy my curiosity. Who is this "Armstrong" gentleman?
Does he ride a bike?


p.s. I didn't see "reason to suspect" in the cyclingnews article.
Are you getting pull-quotes from Carnac the Magnificent again?

wrote in message
oups.com...

B. Lafferty wrote:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/?id=...ul05/jul30news

Blow for Armstrong in Sunday Times suit
Lance Armstrong's lawsuit against London's Sunday Times has lost some
steam
after Great Britain's Court of Appeal ruled that the newspaper was
entitled
to publish a story that alleged that the Texan had used illegal
performance
enhancing drugs. On Friday, the Court of Appeal's three-judge panel
overturned a High Court decision that had previously ruled against the
Sunday Times. The case is set to continue, as the newspaper is now
allowed
to present its defence as to why it felt it was in the public interest to
publish the contentious piece. A date for the trial has not been set,
however.

As a lawyer, I'm sure these legal cases are very interesting to you.
But, please satisfy my curiosity. Who is this "Armstrong" gentleman?
Does he ride a bike?


p.s. I didn't see "reason to suspect" in the cyclingnews article.
Are you getting pull-quotes from Carnac the Magnificent again?


Read the lower court's decision and you'll see the term used frequently.
The months ahead are going to be lots of fun with much interesting
information coming out despite the best efforts of Armstrong's lawyers and
his myth making machine to keep the lid on.

B. Lafferty wrote:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/?id=...ul05/jul30news


However, no hard proof
was given in the book, and after publication, David Walsh admitted that it
was all circumstantial evidence.


Wow. What a news flash.

This whole circus has more to do with British slander laws than bicycle
racing. Especially now that LA has retired. Time for you to get on
with your life, Brian.

wrote:


p.s. I didn't see "reason to suspect" in the cyclingnews article.
Are you getting pull-quotes from Carnac the Magnificent again?

I'm pretty sure he was referring to the possibility that he's an
obsessive compulsive nut case.

Because it's over, and he's gone. Time to move on...

-Smurf

Today, I was giving my dog some water using a special water
in front of some cafe in Paris, and some typical pretentious
guy there started asking me what I was giving
her, and when I didn't respond to his query, started asking
whether it was a doping product. Just to show you
what happens annoying people have time on their hands.

-ilan

B=2E Lafferty a =E9crit :

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/?id=...ul05/jul30news

Blow for Armstrong in Sunday Times suit
Lance Armstrong's lawsuit against London's Sunday Times has lost some ste=
am
after Great Britain's Court of Appeal ruled that the newspaper was entitl=
ed
to publish a story that alleged that the Texan had used illegal performan=
ce
enhancing drugs. On Friday, the Court of Appeal's three-judge panel
overturned a High Court decision that had previously ruled against the
Sunday Times. The case is set to continue, as the newspaper is now allowed
to present its defence as to why it felt it was in the public interest to
publish the contentious piece. A date for the trial has not been set,
however.

The original article was based on the book L.A. Confidentiel, co-authored=
by
David Walsh and Pierre Ballester, which contained a number of stories
collected from former associates of Armstrong that tried to paint a pictu=
re
of him using illegal methods to boost performance. However, no hard proof
was given in the book, and after publication, David Walsh admitted that it
was all circumstantial evidence.

In a separate case, just after the book's publication, a Parisian court
ruled against Armstrong's desire for a rebuttal be included in the book,
saying that he was given the opportunity to respond by the authors, but
declined.

"Tim Lines" wrote in message
...
B. Lafferty wrote:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/?id=...ul05/jul30news


However, no hard proof
was given in the book, and after publication, David Walsh admitted that
it was all circumstantial evidence.


Wow. What a news flash.

This whole circus has more to do with British slander laws than bicycle
racing. Especially now that LA has retired. Time for you to get on with
your life, Brian.

Just give it time. Sir Lance is about to learn that once the lawyers are
let loose, you can no longer control everything. As the ultimate control
freak, this is going to be Armstrong's nightmare come to life. And I will
be here to tell you that I told you so.

"Torched Smurf" wrote in message
oups.com...
Because it's over, and he's gone. Time to move on...

-Smurf


It isn't over by a long shot, Smurfball.

"Tim Lines" wrote in message
...
B. Lafferty wrote:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/?id=...ul05/jul30news


However, no hard proof
was given in the book, and after publication, David Walsh admitted that
it was all circumstantial evidence.


Wow. What a news flash.

This whole circus has more to do with British slander laws than bicycle
racing. Especially now that LA has retired. Time for you to get on with
your life, Brian.

Brian's entire life is slander.