What has been the reaction of the biathletes cyclingheroes? I know that some of them are big stars.cyclingheroes said:
Yet another doping threat (Viennese Blood)
- Thread starter Cobblestones
- Start date
That is disconcerting though when the DSV gets angry and wants to sue at this early stage. Smacks of a cover-up. The athletes themselves who were implicated in the report should be suing if they feel libeled. The DSV should be interested in getting to the truth first IMHO...seeing if there is any problem they may need to address.cyclingheroes said:
I guess it is only non-denial that would be surprising. After all, how many people who have been busted for doping did not deny the first time allegations came out?cyclingheroes said:
You know I see so many people rip athletes (not just cyclists) when they deny doping. Why? This goes right to the heart of my theory that once you have been accused in any way it is impossible to convince everyone that you are clean no matter what.TheDarkLord said:
What do you expect when it turns out that most of these people are proved to be liars? If half of these people are exonerated, it would be a different story. Once it is clear that the most vehement denials are just lies and smokescreens, how can you ever believe what comes out of the athletes' mouths? You can't blame the public for that. The athletes have dug that pit themselves.Casa said:
Casa said:
Libel laws.
Any party that has been falsely accused - libelled - has recourse to the law if the accusation made about them is false and defamatory (ie.defamatory meaning that the accusation removes the good name of the person accused).
No media organisation, no publisher, no newspaper - could run the risk of falsely accusing someone.
If they did falsely accuse someone, they run the risk of being sued for libel.
The libel laws here in this part of the world are onerous.
If a writer/author/journalist makes an accusation - he/she must be able to provide proof for the basis of their accusation before publication. Otherwise most media genre would not be prepared to make a false accusation - unless they had proof.
In fact the libel laws are so punitive here - that if one organisation makes a false accusation, another organisation reporting the fact that an accusation has been made, runs the risk of also being sued for libel by the plaintiff.
1) Is an athlete going to sue every person on the net who spreads a rumor?
2) How does one prove he or she has never doped? Especially in this day and age when everyone is quick to defend the labs and the accusers, quick to say the accused is lying, quick to dismiss anything that may prove innocence, when the accusers either don't retract their stories or do in a way as minimally as possible, quick to say it's ok to nail innocent people to get the guilty people. How can you prove you were innocent back in 2001 or 1989 or 1995 or any time when their is no way to re test the sample?
2) How does one prove he or she has never doped? Especially in this day and age when everyone is quick to defend the labs and the accusers, quick to say the accused is lying, quick to dismiss anything that may prove innocence, when the accusers either don't retract their stories or do in a way as minimally as possible, quick to say it's ok to nail innocent people to get the guilty people. How can you prove you were innocent back in 2001 or 1989 or 1995 or any time when their is no way to re test the sample?
Casa said:
Net?
You referred to the media - here's your quote
Casa said:
The recourse to remedy a false allegation made, in whatever genre, is to sue for libel.
If the athlete is clean - he can sue for libel safe in the knowledge that there is no proof of his/her having doped.
Of course, if they have doped then they would be unwise to assume that they could bluff their way through a libel proceeding.
The truth will out - as we now know.
Casa said:
Proof of not doping - is passing all tests at all points in time.
That's how.
If you haven't taken anything - you never run the risk of being caught out.
That's the mistake that some cyclists made - they, incorrectly, assumed that because they doped at a point in time for when there was no testing available, they assumed that they would never be caught.
Casa said:
This is not the point. If someone (the media) puts such an accusation out and the athlete sues for libel, then the media organization has to provide proof for their accusation, not the athlete proof for innocence. Your point is moot.
There is a big difference between apologizing for a scandal caused by misreporting, and apologizing for unearthing a scandal that will cause significant repercussions in some sports (e.g. biathlon, x-country skiing).italiano said:
I not comprender...sorry..late here, my brain sleepy... give real esemple please...TheDarkLord said:
TV responsabil errated informazion...TV responsabil errated informazion....TV should escuse for errated report...scandal is derivative in consumer of report...right?
I'm sleepy too; we are in the same time zone. Ok, here are the two possibilities:italiano said:
1. ARD did misreport. The misreporting caused a scandal. Hence, ARD apologized for the erroneous report.
2. ARD did not misreport. However, the report unearths a major scandal in sports like biathlon, which causes significant resentment among parties with links to money and power. They exert pressure, and ARD apologizes for reporting on the topic. This scenario is sort of similar to how the Spanish government covers up OP to protect football.
My question to CH was, which of the two scenarios is valid?
I would just like to draw other members' attention to the fact that italiano has, in the space of a little over a month, lost his ability to communicate in reasonable English. It should be noted that italiano joined this forum on December 7th, about a week after we had some fun at Daily Peloton Forums.italiano said:
Please read the above post...and compare it with this post that italiano made shortly after joining Cyclingforums.com last month...on the Health and Nutrition forum.
Would you like to explain to us why you now want to give the impression that you speak very little English? And please don't give us the "I used a language bot" excuse. Language bots don't alter syntax and produce English prose to that standard.
Can you explain your motive and agenda for trying to muddy and confuse your identity?
Is is Borat?Crankyfeet said:I would just like to draw other members' attention to the fact that italiano has, in the space of a little over a month, lost his ability to communicate in reasonable English. It should be noted that italiano joined this forum on December 7th, about a week after we had some fun at Daily Peloton Forums.
Please read the above post...and compare it with this post that italiano made shortly after joining Cyclingforums.com last month...on the Health and Nutrition forum.
Would you like to explain to us why you now want to give the impression that you speak very little English? And please don't give us the "I used a language bot" excuse. Language bots don't alter syntax and produce English prose to that standard.
Can you explain your motive and agenda for trying to muddy and confuse your identity?
Perhaps I was not clear in the way I wrote, but I was talking about people and the media.limerickman said:
But wait, many on this forum, other forums and the media say not testing positive is not proof of not doping, yet now you are telling me it is.
Thank you for so ably proving my point.
Similar threads
