Road Cycling · Public discussion

"Reason to Suspect"

Started by B. Lafferty · · Last activity · 83 posts · 2,307 views

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Road Cycling
Published
29 July 2005
Last activity
1 August 2005
Original author
B. Lafferty
Posts
83
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
2,307
Views / 30 days
4

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–20 of 83
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/?id=2005/jul05/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.

  2. B. Lafferty said:

    http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/?id=2005/jul05/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?

  3. <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    B. Lafferty said:

    http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/?id=2005/jul05/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.

  4. B. Lafferty said:

    http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/?id=2005/jul05/jul30news

    However, no hard proof

    Quoted message said:

    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.

  5. Quoted message said:


    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.

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

    -Smurf

  7. 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. Lafferty a écrit :

    Quoted message said:

    http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/?id=2005/jul05/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-authoredby
    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.

  8. "Tim Lines" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    B. Lafferty said:

    http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/?id=2005/jul05/jul30news

    However, no hard proof

    Quoted message said:

    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.

  9. "Torched Smurf" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

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

    -Smurf

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

  10. "Tim Lines" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    B. Lafferty said:

    http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/?id=2005/jul05/jul30news

    However, no hard proof

    Quoted message said:

    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.

  11. "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]> wrote in
    news:[email hidden]:

    Quoted message said:

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

    So you're saying Carnac lives up Lafferty's ass?

    NS

  12. <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Just to show you what happens annoying people
    have time on their hands.

    Well, I don't think that you could more accurately have descibed Lafferty.
    If he could get a job he would have so much time on his hands and he
    wouldn't annoy nearly so many people. But there can only be so many pizza
    delivery lawyers.

  13. In article <[email hidden]>,

    Tom Kunich said:

    <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Just to show you what happens annoying people
    have time on their hands.

    Well, I don't think that you could more accurately have descibed Lafferty.
    If he could get a job he would have so much time on his hands and he
    wouldn't annoy nearly so many people. But there can only be so many pizza
    delivery lawyers.

    I'm reminded of the pizza delivery/pseudo architect in the movie
    "There's Something about Mary."

  14. "B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote ...

    Quoted message said:


    "... myth making machine..."

    This statement looks a bit stronger than your earlier assertion that the
    strongest statement you ever made was that there is a prima facie case to be
    made. Has new evidence led you to take a stronger view?

  15. "Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Just to show you what happens annoying people
    have time on their hands.

    Well, I don't think that you could more accurately have descibed Lafferty.
    If he could get a job he would have so much time on his hands and he
    wouldn't annoy nearly so many people. But there can only be so many pizza
    delivery lawyers.

    He did pretty well by that developer that wanted to slice up sections of
    Martha's Vineyard. Although I bet the residents aren't too thrilled.

    Isn't he cute?
    http://www.mvgazette.com/news/2004/04/09/content/brian_lafferty_lg.jpg

    Speaking of nightmares caused by the likes of Lafferty though, Andrew
    Woodruff seems to have summed it up pretty well: "This has been a really
    trying time for the commission and for all those in the community that have
    been on both sides of the issue. I hope this is now time to put it behind us
    and heal the wounds," declared commission member Andrew Woodruff.

  16. B. Lafferty says...

    Quoted message said:

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

    Actually, it probably is. If Lance was using, he has very little reason
    now to continue it. Nothing new to nail him with and the old stories
    will get old and stale.

  17. In article <8wCGe.171509$tt5.110407@edtnps90>,

    Jim Flom said:

    "Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Just to show you what happens annoying people
    have time on their hands.

    Well, I don't think that you could more accurately have descibed Lafferty.
    If he could get a job he would have so much time on his hands and he
    wouldn't annoy nearly so many people. But there can only be so many pizza
    delivery lawyers.

    He did pretty well by that developer that wanted to slice up sections of
    Martha's Vineyard. Although I bet the residents aren't too thrilled.

    As Steven Wright once said: "99 percent of lawyers are giving the rest a
    bad name."

    --
    tanx,
    Howard

    Butter is love.

    remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

  18. Tom Kunich says...

    Quoted message said:

    But there can only be so many pizza delivery lawyers.

    A true classic. RBRGH05

  19. Tom Kunich said:

    "Tim Lines" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    B. Lafferty said:

    http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/?id=2005/jul05/jul30news

    However, no hard proof

    Quoted message said:

    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.

    There you go. Now it all makes sense.

  20. In article <[email hidden]>,

    Nev Shea said:

    "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]> wrote in
    news:[email hidden]:

    Quoted message said:

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

    So you're saying Carnac lives up Lafferty's ass?

    Ed McMahon: Siss, boom, bah.
    Karnac the Magnificent: [holds the envelope to his forehead and
    concentrates] What is the sound of an exploding sheep.

    --
    Michael Press

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.