WADA's preliminary conclusion is that the report is defamatory to the Agency, its officers and employees, as well as the accredited laboratory involved. WADA has taken legal advice regarding its recourses against the investigator and any organization, including UCI, that may publicly adopt its conclusions.
Ho, ho, ho. I look forward to WADA's lawsuit and the ensuing discovery process (or whatever the equivalent is in the jurisidiction where WADA brings the lawsuit). Facts that the WADA and LNDD refused to tell Vrijman could be exposed in such a process. For someone who chortled over the possible backlash of exposed embarrassments from Armstrong's suit against Walsh & co., the boot is on the other foot.
I also look forward to WADA suing any organization that publicly adopts the report's conclusions. What exactly does that mean? Does it mean that if they _act_ according to the recommendations, WADA will sue? Or will the mere utterance "We endorse the report" trigger a lawsuit?
There ain't no entertainment like Bureaucrat Smackdown.
<[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Allez1 said:
Text of the WADA Press Release: ...
WADA's preliminary conclusion is that the report is defamatory to the Agency, its officers and employees, as well as the accredited laboratory involved. WADA has taken legal advice regarding its recourses against the investigator and any organization, including UCI, that may publicly adopt its conclusions.
Ho, ho, ho. I look forward to WADA's lawsuit and the ensuing discovery process (or whatever the equivalent is in the jurisidiction where WADA brings the lawsuit). Facts that the WADA and LNDD refused to tell Vrijman could be exposed in such a process. For someone who chortled over the possible backlash of exposed embarrassments from Armstrong's suit against Walsh & co., the boot is on the other foot.
I also look forward to WADA suing any organization that publicly adopts the report's conclusions. What exactly does that mean? Does it mean that if they _act_ according to the recommendations, WADA will sue? Or will the mere utterance "We endorse the report" trigger a lawsuit?
There ain't no entertainment like Bureaucrat Smackdown.
Is Tommy Eunuch going to testify as an expert witness for the UCI and Vrijman? :-)
"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
<[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Allez1 said:
Text of the WADA Press Release: ...
WADA's preliminary conclusion is that the report is defamatory to the Agency, its officers and employees, as well as the accredited laboratory involved. WADA has taken legal advice regarding its recourses against the investigator and any organization, including UCI, that may publicly adopt its conclusions.
Ho, ho, ho. I look forward to WADA's lawsuit and the ensuing discovery process (or whatever the equivalent is in the jurisidiction where WADA brings the lawsuit). Facts that the WADA and LNDD refused to tell Vrijman could be exposed in such a process. For someone who chortled over the possible backlash of exposed embarrassments from Armstrong's suit against Walsh & co., the boot is on the other foot.
I also look forward to WADA suing any organization that publicly adopts the report's conclusions. What exactly does that mean? Does it mean that if they _act_ according to the recommendations, WADA will sue? Or will the mere utterance "We endorse the report" trigger a lawsuit?
There ain't no entertainment like Bureaucrat Smackdown.
Is Tommy Eunuch going to testify as an expert witness for the UCI and Vrijman? :-)
Not sure, but I am sure Karl Rove and [censored] Cheney will testify for [censored] Pound. All three seem to have equally impeccable integrity.
<[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Allez1 said:
Text of the WADA Press Release: ...
WADA's preliminary conclusion is that the report is defamatory to the Agency, its officers and employees, as well as the accredited laboratory involved. WADA has taken legal advice regarding its recourses against the investigator and any organization, including UCI, that may publicly adopt its conclusions.
Ho, ho, ho. I look forward to WADA's lawsuit and the ensuing discovery process (or whatever the equivalent is in the jurisidiction where WADA brings the lawsuit). Facts that the WADA and LNDD refused to tell Vrijman could be exposed in such a process. For someone who chortled over the possible backlash of exposed embarrassments from Armstrong's suit against Walsh & co., the boot is on the other foot.
I also look forward to WADA suing any organization that publicly adopts the report's conclusions. What exactly does that mean? Does it mean that if they _act_ according to the recommendations, WADA will sue? Or will the mere utterance "We endorse the report" trigger a lawsuit?
There ain't no entertainment like Bureaucrat Smackdown.
Is Tommy Eunuch going to testify as an expert witness for the UCI and Vrijman? :-)
Yo! Brian. [censored] Pound is taking legal advice. How would you advise him?
"Michael Press" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
In article <[email hidden]>,
B. Lafferty said:
<[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Allez1, Esq. wrote: > Text of the WADA Press Release: ... > > WADA's preliminary conclusion is that the report is defamatory to the > Agency, its officers and employees, as well as the accredited > laboratory > involved. WADA has taken legal advice regarding its recourses against > the > investigator and any organization, including UCI, that may publicly > adopt > its conclusions.
Ho, ho, ho. I look forward to WADA's lawsuit and the ensuing discovery process (or whatever the equivalent is in the jurisidiction where WADA brings the lawsuit). Facts that the WADA and LNDD refused to tell Vrijman could be exposed in such a process. For someone who chortled over the possible backlash of exposed embarrassments from Armstrong's suit against Walsh & co., the boot is on the other foot.
I also look forward to WADA suing any organization that publicly adopts the report's conclusions. What exactly does that mean? Does it mean that if they _act_ according to the recommendations, WADA will sue? Or will the mere utterance "We endorse the report" trigger a lawsuit?
There ain't no entertainment like Bureaucrat Smackdown.
Is Tommy Eunuch going to testify as an expert witness for the UCI and Vrijman? :-)
Yo! Brian. [censored] Pound is taking legal advice. How would you advise him?
What [censored] Pound needs is psychiatric advice... Prof. Hare, emeritus professor of psychology at the University of British Columbia, is one of the world's leading experts on psychopathy. In 1980, he defined the mental disorder for modern scientists with an internationally recognized diagnostic tool called the Psychopathy Checklist... Prof. Hare, who is a member of the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation's research-advisory board on serial killers, was intrigued. "I always said that if I wasn't studying psychopaths in prison, I'd do so at the Vancouver Stock Exchange," he says, recalling the days when the VSE was still up and tumbling like the Wild West.
"Michael Press" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
In article <[email hidden]>,
B. Lafferty said:
<[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Allez1, Esq. wrote: > Text of the WADA Press Release: ... > > WADA's preliminary conclusion is that the report is defamatory to the > Agency, its officers and employees, as well as the accredited > laboratory > involved. WADA has taken legal advice regarding its recourses against > the > investigator and any organization, including UCI, that may publicly > adopt > its conclusions.
Ho, ho, ho. I look forward to WADA's lawsuit and the ensuing discovery process (or whatever the equivalent is in the jurisidiction where WADA brings the lawsuit). Facts that the WADA and LNDD refused to tell Vrijman could be exposed in such a process. For someone who chortled over the possible backlash of exposed embarrassments from Armstrong's suit against Walsh & co., the boot is on the other foot.
I also look forward to WADA suing any organization that publicly adopts the report's conclusions. What exactly does that mean? Does it mean that if they _act_ according to the recommendations, WADA will sue? Or will the mere utterance "We endorse the report" trigger a lawsuit?
There ain't no entertainment like Bureaucrat Smackdown.
Is Tommy Eunuch going to testify as an expert witness for the UCI and Vrijman? :-)
Yo! Brian. [censored] Pound is taking legal advice. How would you advise him?
-- Michael Press
[censored] Pound should claim he was suffering from Tourettes Syndrome, but is now being medicated and doesn't remember a thing. It is his only real defense.
[censored] Pound should claim he was suffering from Tourettes Syndrome, but is now being medicated and doesn't remember a thing. It is his only real defense.
In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...
Quoted message said:
Ho, ho, ho. I look forward to WADA's lawsuit and the ensuing discovery process (or whatever the equivalent is in the jurisidiction where WADA brings the lawsuit). Facts that the WADA and LNDD refused to tell Vrijman could be exposed in such a process. For someone who chortled over the possible backlash of exposed embarrassments from Armstrong's suit against Walsh & co., the boot is on the other foot.
I also look forward to WADA suing any organization that publicly adopts the report's conclusions. What exactly does that mean? Does it mean that if they _act_ according to the recommendations, WADA will sue? Or will the mere utterance "We endorse the report" trigger a lawsuit?
WADA will either not file suit or settle quickly. They way they manipulate with the press shows they are not stupid in these matters. They will not allow their biased ways to be made public. --------------- Alex
