The Fun Is About To Begin

B. Lafferty said:

From CyclingNews:

Armstrong suing for ?2 million
Two and a half months after the the publication of the book L.A.
Confidentiel by British journalist David Walsh and Pierre Ballester - which
he had tried to prevent without success - Lance Armstrong has now set out to
sue the publisher Martinière, the authors, his ex-soigneur Emma O'Reilly as
well as French magazine L'Express for printing excerpts.

According to a statement issued by Michel Zaoui, the magazine's attorney,
the defamation of character case involves ?2 million and a preliminary court
date has been set for December 1, 2004. A second charge of complicity is
also being made against Emma O'Reilly and with a hearing scheduled for
December 9. M. Zaoui declared he would be asking for the two cases to be
treated at the same hearing, while not expecting a final ruling before 2006.

Armstrong's lawyers told AFP, "The pre-publication of excerpts in L'Express,
together with the book's publication on the next day, were merely a
commercial event destined to make enormous profits to the detriment of Lance
Armstrong."

In France the book was indeed much talked about and a best-seller, although
it did not offer any conclusive proof that Armstrong had ever used
performance-enhancing drugs.

Ha. But now he gotta prove a negative if he wants injunction, damages,
punitive damages, whatever, right?

--
le Vent a Dos, Davey Crockett
Six Day Site: http://sixday.741.com/

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

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

From CyclingNews:

Armstrong suing for ?2 million
Two and a half months after the the publication of the book L.A.
Confidentiel by British journalist David Walsh and Pierre Ballester -
which
he had tried to prevent without success - Lance Armstrong has now set out
to
sue the publisher Martinière, the authors, his ex-soigneur Emma O'Reilly
as
well as French magazine L'Express for printing excerpts.

According to a statement issued by Michel Zaoui, the magazine's attorney,
the defamation of character case involves ?2 million and a preliminary
court
date has been set for December 1, 2004. A second charge of complicity is
also being made against Emma O'Reilly and with a hearing scheduled for
December 9. M. Zaoui declared he would be asking for the two cases to be
treated at the same hearing, while not expecting a final ruling before
2006.

Armstrong's lawyers told AFP, "The pre-publication of excerpts in
L'Express,
together with the book's publication on the next day, were merely a
commercial event destined to make enormous profits to the detriment of
Lance
Armstrong."

In France the book was indeed much talked about and a best-seller,
although
it did not offer any conclusive proof that Armstrong had ever used
performance-enhancing drugs.

Ha. But now he gotta prove a negative if he wants injunction, damages,
punitive damages, whatever, right?

--
le Vent a Dos, Davey Crockett
Six Day Site: http://sixday.741.com/

My understanding is that in France the ones charged have the burden of
proving the truth of their statements. I'm wondering what the fallout of
suing Emma might be. Will it bring more people forward with their own
statements about Armstrong? Also, Emma's diary, a contemporaneously kept
document, should make very interesting reading at trial.

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

Quoted message said:

From CyclingNews:

Armstrong suing for ?2 million
Two and a half months after the the publication of the book L.A.
Confidentiel by British journalist David Walsh and Pierre Ballester -

which

Quoted message said:

he had tried to prevent without success - Lance Armstrong has now set out

to

Quoted message said:

sue the publisher Martinière, the authors, his ex-soigneur Emma O'Reilly

as

Quoted message said:

well as French magazine L'Express for printing excerpts.

According to a statement issued by Michel Zaoui, the magazine's attorney,
the defamation of character case involves ?2 million and a preliminary

court

Quoted message said:

date has been set for December 1, 2004. A second charge of complicity is
also being made against Emma O'Reilly and with a hearing scheduled for
December 9. M. Zaoui declared he would be asking for the two cases to be
treated at the same hearing, while not expecting a final ruling before

2006.

Quoted message said:

Armstrong's lawyers told AFP, "The pre-publication of excerpts in

L'Express,

Quoted message said:

together with the book's publication on the next day, were merely a
commercial event destined to make enormous profits to the detriment of

Lance

Quoted message said:

Armstrong."

In France the book was indeed much talked about and a best-seller,

although

Quoted message said:

it did not offer any conclusive proof that Armstrong had ever used
performance-enhancing drugs.

--
Peloton Pigs--Flying Since 1991

This is really bad news in that it means we have to endure more of your
unsubstantiated "Lance is a doper" [censored]. Did you read the last paragraph of
what you posted? The part about how the book "did not offer any conclusive
proof that Armstrong had ever used
performance-enhancing drugs." And if Lance were guilty, what's in it for
him to do this? Seems he'd be running a far greater risk of being exposed
than of being wrongfully exonerated.

Bob C.

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

From CyclingNews:

Armstrong suing for ?2 million
Two and a half months after the the publication of the book L.A.
Confidentiel by British journalist David Walsh and Pierre Ballester -

which

Quoted message said:

he had tried to prevent without success - Lance Armstrong has now set out

to

Quoted message said:

sue the publisher Martinière, the authors, his ex-soigneur Emma O'Reilly

as

Quoted message said:

well as French magazine L'Express for printing excerpts.

According to a statement issued by Michel Zaoui, the magazine's attorney,
the defamation of character case involves ?2 million and a preliminary

court

Quoted message said:

date has been set for December 1, 2004. A second charge of complicity is
also being made against Emma O'Reilly and with a hearing scheduled for
December 9. M. Zaoui declared he would be asking for the two cases to be
treated at the same hearing, while not expecting a final ruling before

2006.

Quoted message said:

Armstrong's lawyers told AFP, "The pre-publication of excerpts in

L'Express,

Quoted message said:

together with the book's publication on the next day, were merely a
commercial event destined to make enormous profits to the detriment of

Lance

Quoted message said:

Armstrong."

In France the book was indeed much talked about and a best-seller,

although

Quoted message said:

it did not offer any conclusive proof that Armstrong had ever used
performance-enhancing drugs.

--
Peloton Pigs--Flying Since 1991

This is really bad news in that it means we have to endure more of your
unsubstantiated "Lance is a doper" [censored]. Did you read the last paragraph
of
what you posted? The part about how the book "did not offer any
conclusive
proof that Armstrong had ever used performance-enhancing drugs."

Walsh has stated that they set out the other side of the Lance story in 388
pages and leave it to the reader to draw what conclusions they may. I've
read the book. In my opinion, the presumption is that Postal has had a
doping program since 1997 and that it is likely that Armstrong was using
drugs before the onset of his cancer. (NOTE--I have not drawn at conclusion)
Those presumptions are rebuttable and might well be rebutted by Armstrong
answering some tough questions which he is not about to do, except perhaps,
in court with his legal action. I'm just going to sit back and see what
testimony and other evidence developes over the course of his legal action.

Quoted message said:

And if Lance were guilty, what's in it for
him to do this? Seems he'd be running a far greater risk of being exposed
than of being wrongfully exonerated.

Good questions. I suggest you pose them to Armstrong via his web site and
see what kind of answer you get.
http://www.lancearmstrong.com/

Quoted message said:

Bob C.

psycholist said:

This is really bad news in that it means we have to endure more of
your unsubstantiated "Lance is a doper" [censored]. Did you read the last
paragraph of what you posted? The part about how the book "did not
offer any conclusive proof that Armstrong had ever used
performance-enhancing drugs." And if Lance were guilty, what's in
it for him to do this? Seems he'd be running a far greater risk of
being exposed than of being wrongfully exonerated.

Exonerated of what? The book had no proof.

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

Quoted message said:

psycholist said:

This is really bad news in that it means we have to endure more of
your unsubstantiated "Lance is a doper" [censored]. Did you read the last
paragraph of what you posted? The part about how the book "did not
offer any conclusive proof that Armstrong had ever used
performance-enhancing drugs." And if Lance were guilty, what's in
it for him to do this? Seems he'd be running a far greater risk of
being exposed than of being wrongfully exonerated.

Exonerated of what? The book had no proof.

You've read the book then?

B. Lafferty said:

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

Quoted message said:

psycholist said:

This is really bad news in that it means we have to endure more of
your unsubstantiated "Lance is a doper" [censored]. Did you read the last
paragraph of what you posted? The part about how the book "did not
offer any conclusive proof that Armstrong had ever used
performance-enhancing drugs." And if Lance were guilty, what's in
it for him to do this? Seems he'd be running a far greater risk of
being exposed than of being wrongfully exonerated.

Exonerated of what? The book had no proof.

You've read the book then?

I don't have to. I read your posts.

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

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

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

Quoted message said:

psycholist wrote:
>
> This is really bad news in that it means we have to endure more of
> your unsubstantiated "Lance is a doper" [censored]. Did you read the last
> paragraph of what you posted? The part about how the book "did not
> offer any conclusive proof that Armstrong had ever used
> performance-enhancing drugs." And if Lance were guilty, what's in
> it for him to do this? Seems he'd be running a far greater risk of
> being exposed than of being wrongfully exonerated.
>
Exonerated of what? The book had no proof.

You've read the book then?

I don't have to. I read your posts.

Sorry, Kyle. Until you read the book, you're just talking out of your ass.

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

From CyclingNews:

Armstrong suing for ?2 million
Two and a half months after the the publication of the book L.A.
Confidentiel by British journalist David Walsh and Pierre Ballester - which
he had tried to prevent without success - Lance Armstrong has now set out to
sue the publisher Martinière, the authors, his ex-soigneur Emma O'Reilly as
well as French magazine L'Express for printing excerpts.

According to a statement issued by Michel Zaoui, the magazine's attorney,
the defamation of character case involves ?2 million and a preliminary court
date has been set for December 1, 2004. A second charge of complicity is
also being made against Emma O'Reilly and with a hearing scheduled for
December 9. M. Zaoui declared he would be asking for the two cases to be
treated at the same hearing, while not expecting a final ruling before 2006.

Armstrong's lawyers told AFP, "The pre-publication of excerpts in L'Express,
together with the book's publication on the next day, were merely a
commercial event destined to make enormous profits to the detriment of Lance
Armstrong."

In France the book was indeed much talked about and a best-seller, although
it did not offer any conclusive proof that Armstrong had ever used
performance-enhancing drugs.

Ha. But now he gotta prove a negative if he wants injunction, damages,
punitive damages, whatever, right?

Not exactly. He doesn't have to prove the negative what he gets to show is that
the events described did not happen _as_claimed_. Much easier to do. Of course
this action seems to be mostly overseas and I've got no idea how libel law works
there....

Ron

B. Lafferty said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Exonerated of what? The book had no proof.

You've read the book then?

I don't have to. I read your posts.

Quoted message said:

Sorry, Kyle. Until you read the book, you're just talking out of your ass.

When is it being translated into English from the original Horseshit?

Bob Schwartz
[email hidden]

Brian, you're a douche. Of course, if I were more sophisticated like you
I would call you a douche in French, right?

Bob Schwartz said:

Brian, you're a douche. Of course, if I were more sophisticated like you
I would call you a douche in French, right?

Touche.

B. Lafferty said:

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

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

"Kyle Legate" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> psycholist wrote:
>>
>> This is really bad news in that it means we have to endure more of
>> your unsubstantiated "Lance is a doper" [censored]. Did you read the
>> last paragraph of what you posted? The part about how the book
>> "did not offer any conclusive proof that Armstrong had ever used
>> performance-enhancing drugs." And if Lance were guilty, what's
>> in it for him to do this? Seems he'd be running a far greater risk
>> of being exposed than of being wrongfully exonerated.
>>
> Exonerated of what? The book had no proof.

You've read the book then?

I don't have to. I read your posts.

Sorry, Kyle. Until you read the book, you're just talking out of
your ass.

I'm trying, but I'll never be as good as you.

Bob Schwartz said:

Brian, you're a douche. Of course, if I were more sophisticated like you
I would call you a douche in French, right?

The ability to speak French does not equal sophistication. However, the ability to speak any language with intelligence may. 😎

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

Quoted message said:

Bob Schwartz said:

Brian, you're a douche. Of course, if I were more sophisticated like
you
I would call you a douche in French, right?

The ability to speak French does not equal sophistication. However,
the ability to speak any language with intelligence may. 😎

--
derby

Of course, if it weren't for Armstrong's threatened legal action in the UK,
the book would be out for all to read in English. Hopefully, it will
eventually be published that way so that more people can read it.

On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 22:01:39 GMT, RonSonic <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Of course
this action seems to be mostly overseas and I've got no idea how libel law works
there....

In the US, this would be a fruitless venture, but perhaps it will work
in France.

Quoted message said:

From: "B. Lafferty"

('scuse lacking attribs, flow is clear):

Quoted message said:

Seems he'd [Armstrong] be running a far greater risk of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> being exposed than of being wrongfully exonerated.
>>
> Exonerated of what? The book had no proof.

You've read the book then?

I don't have to. I read your posts.

Sorry, Kyle. Until you read the book, you're just talking out of your ass.

Walsh most carefully said in his release publicity "We don't prove anything
here" so no, one did not have to read the book, with Walsh trying to cover his
ass "in front".

Nice try (not), trying to pump sales, Brian.

Lance didn't roll over for Walsh, who has "convicted" LA of riding faster than
others, and therefore being a doper. He has the same "problem" with the TdF for
the same reason, and timed his LA Confidential release to do the most harm
possible to both.

Loved your earlier comment "I'm just going to sit back and see what testimony
and other evidence developes [oops] over the course of his legal action".

Pretty please? I don't think you can do it. Of course, LA's racing season is
over, that will help.

Earlier in thread, BL posted:

<In my opinion, the presumption [Walsh book LA Confidential] is that Postal has
had a
doping program since 1997 and that it is likely that Armstrong was using
drugs before the onset of his cancer. (NOTE--I have not drawn at conclusion) >

Presumption of guilt, non-analytical positives, network of spies. Proud work.
--TP

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

Quoted message said:

<In my opinion, the presumption [Walsh book LA Confidential] is that
Postal has
had a
doping program since 1997 and that it is likely that Armstrong was using
drugs before the onset of his cancer. (NOTE--I have not drawn at
conclusion) >

Presumption of guilt, non-analytical positives, network of spies. Proud
work.
--TP

I take it that you still haven't read the book. BTW, do you understand what
a prima facie case is? That's what, IMO, Walsh and Ballester have made in
their book. Get a copy and see what you think. Or don't. Whatever.

B. Lafferty said:

I take it that you still haven't read the book. BTW, do you understand what
a prima facie case is?

There you go with that French [censored] again.

I'll summarize the evidence. Emma goes to Spain to pick up some pills. You
ought to be able to positively ID them by the shape, color, and markings.
But she doesn't note any of that, she just hands them to Lance and has no
clue what they are. It's up to your imagination.

Horseshit.

From: http://www.iht.com/articles/524790.html

"In July 1999, before the perfunctory medical examination that precedes
each Tour de France, Armstrong asked her for makeup to cover bruises on
his arm caused by injections. The authors say that the many legal
injections of vitamins, iron and recuperative agents that riders receive
are always administered in the buttocks; the upper arms, they contend,
are better suited for such illegal substances as EPO, human growth
hormone and steroids."

Horseshit.

There's other stuff too, It all may be true. But none of it is verified
in any way other than Emma's word.

Horseshit.

It's all about the $$$.

Bob Schwartz
[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

From: "B. Lafferty"

Quoted message said:

I take it that you still haven't read the book.

The problem is buying it to read it. As you can tell, I'm not much on innuendo,
"non-analytical positives" (there is no such thing), spy rings, jailhouse
finks, all of that. I don't share your or Walsh's personal dislike for LA,
either, so I'm not hot to hang him.

Quoted message said:

BTW, do you understand what
a prima facie case is?

Even if I didn't I could look it up real quick. You remember my Webster's,
right?

Quoted message said:

That's [prima facie] what, IMO, Walsh and Ballester have made in
their book.

"Armstrong went faster"? Emma was mule for unknown pills? A doc got fired
before LA was even around?

Quoted message said:

Get a copy and see what you think. Or >don't. Whatever.

To be read only with adequate ventilation.
--TP