That new sticky...

aurelio_-_banned

Jeff Jones wrote:

drenkrom wrote:

Is this to say that it's Future Publishing's policy to automatically respond in the affirmative to legal requests for the identification of users? The terms of service I accepted were clear on that situation if the demanding party is a law enforcement organization, but what happens with a civil case (such a libel), where UK, EU and International laws and past legal judgements make this discovery process non-binding to the website host?

I don't know. I'd have to check with our legal dept on that one. Do you really want to risk it?

I wonder if Future Publishing want to risk being taken to court for damages if they disclosed someone's details contrary to UK, EU and International law?

I also wonder if this new emphasis is due to 'pressure being brought' by some third party or parties...

drenkrom

Jeff Jones wrote:

I'd have to check with our legal dept on that one. Do you really want to risk it?

Not at all. I actually think it's great if people will just think a few seconds before hitting that "Submit" button down there. I'm just curious about these kinds of things. The fact that you have a legal department to report to kind of answers my question, really. I'll spare you the interaction with them.

aurelio wrote:

I wonder if Future Publishing want to risk being taken to court for damages if they disclosed someone's details contrary to UK, EU and International law?.

The problem is that it's not really against the law. But the law doesn't clearly force them to give the info. Up to now, it's on a pretty case-by-case basis and is rarely an elegant process. Hence the interest...

finchy

"This means that a statement made about a whole team could be actionable by each of the individual members of the team."

Does this mean that we can't say things like "Liberty Seguros were a bit dodgy"? Or would we have to insinuate that every single rider was on dope?



"If you post material about doping or other cheating, please do not make allegations in your post. Please do not quote allegations from other sources. Every repetition of a libel is itself a fresh libel."

Hypothetical case here: A rider from a made-up team says that the whole lot were on dope, something denied by his ex-team-mates.

Would we be able to refer to his allegation?



I understand from the publisher's point of view that they don't want people like kkspeeder making allegations left, right and centre. However, if the above hypothetical situations are actionable, then we might as well kiss goodbye to freedom of speech in this country. It seems that the libel laws, like anti-terrorism laws, have been made deliberately vague so that they can be misused to curtail legitimate discussion and action.

pottssteve

In my experience of other forums, this one is fairly liberal, which I appreciate.

Thanks to Mr cuckoo who started it - it's a thread not about doping...

DaveyL

aurelio wrote:

I wonder if Future Publishing want to risk being taken to court for damages if they disclosed someone's details contrary to UK, EU and International law?

I also wonder if this new emphasis is due to 'pressure being brought' by some third party or parties...

Given you've been posting the same stuff on a certain individual for years (at least it feels like it), it's just as likely that people acting for Boardman, Wiggins or even Larsson have been in touch, given some of the OTT accusations we've seen recently.

Kléber

DaveyL wrote:

it's just as likely that people acting for Boardman, Wiggins or even Larsson have been in touch, given some of the OTT accusations we've seen recently.

Quite, the sudden outbreak of the word "jacking" could have a lot to do with it. I don't know if any rider or their entourage got in touch, it was probably just something that needed repeating.

It would be a shame if talk of doping ended, it is sadly still a major aspect of pro cycling and needs debate, not ignorance. Otherwise you get things like this: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=55

jimmythecuckoo

Jeff Jones wrote:

No and no (this forum is anything but private).

Fair enough, but what I was (badly!) trying to say was could you not make part of it private where the issue of drugs could be discussed?

aurelio_-_banned

markwalker wrote:

For balance it would be interesting to understand how much time and money is spent in Libel related activity by the Guardian and other newspapers and wether that is reflected in the editorial content?

I don`t know the answer to that, but the `libel` thing cuts both ways, and recently the Guardian had to make an apology to Betsy Andreu for a piece in which it was suggested that she had lied about hearing Armstrong confess to doping.

We apologise to Betsy Andreu for comments made about her in Big Interview: Donald McRae Meets Lance Armstrong (18 November, page 6, Sport). She has asked us to clarify that, while evidence that she gave in proceedings about an insurance claim brought by Lance Armstrong is disputed, she honestly recounted what she believed she had heard.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2 ... orrections

To be honest many of the most venemous cases of libel on here involve attacks on those bodies and individuals who are fighting doping, such as the LNDD, Greg Lemond and so on, but no one seems to be that bothered about them.

blazing_saddles

Kléber wrote:

It would be a shame if talk of doping ended, it is sadly still a major aspect of pro cycling and needs debate, not ignorance. Otherwise you get things like this: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=55

I think the guy missed put a "d" in his surname! Sounds like a great place to hang out.
Just the place to go, when the paranoia of posting here, begins to bite.
Seriously, there have been a few OTT postings recently, but if I feel the need to employ a lawyer to sit beside me when I post, I won't bother.

It will be difficult to safely debate cutting egde :P doping issues, that regularly appear here, if one has to wait for a judicial outcome!

I hope we all haven't just been signed up to Omerta......or maybe BR's been bought up by L'Equipe? :roll:

jimmythecuckoo

pottssteve wrote:

Thanks to Mr cuckoo who started it - it's a thread not about doping...

Happy to help!

aurelio_-_banned

DaveyL wrote:

aurelio wrote:

I also wonder if this new emphasis is due to 'pressure being brought' by some third party or parties...

Given you've been posting the same stuff on a certain individual for years (at least it feels like it), it's just as likely that people acting for Boardman, Wiggins or even Larsson have been in touch, given some of the OTT accusations we've seen recently.

Eh? Just as likely as what? I said `some third party or parties`. I said nothing about who these might have been, and the term `parties` cleary implies that I was not thinking of any one person in particular. :roll:

Jeff Jones

No, this hasn't been brought about by pressure from a third party. More a continued flagrant disregard for UK defamation laws. Yes they're harsh compared to other countries but you can argue that point with that powers that be. Freedom of speech does not mean you can defame people without a shred of evidence. If you want to do that, there are other forums out there.

moray_gub

aurelio wrote:

Eh? Just as likely as what? I said `some third party or parties`. I said nothing about who these might have been, and the term `parties` cleary implies that I was not thinking of any one person in particular. :roll:

Im reminded of Abe Lincolns quote here.............You can fool some of the people all of the time........and so on

MG

DaveyL

aurelio wrote:

DaveyL wrote:

aurelio wrote:

I also wonder if this new emphasis is due to 'pressure being brought' by some third party or parties...

Given you've been posting the same stuff on a certain individual for years (at least it feels like it), it's just as likely that people acting for Boardman, Wiggins or even Larsson have been in touch, given some of the OTT accusations we've seen recently.

Eh? Just as likely as what? I said `some third party or parties`. I said nothing about who these might have been, and the term `parties` cleary implies that I was not thinking of any one person in particular. :roll:

I guess I mis-interpreted your insinuation of who (and of course he has a team and entourage so of course it could be "parties" as well as "party") it could have been. I suppose a combination of all the stuff you post about his PR machine, his control-freakery, his repeated instigations of litigation etc. plus several references on this same thread to a "phoney, yellow-clad American hero". Still, you oh so coyly and cleverly wrote it so no-one could 100% pin such an accusation on you. Now, how is it you're meant to sign off? Ah yes - :roll:

aurelio_-_banned

Jeff Jones wrote:

Freedom of speech does not mean you can defame people without a shred of evidence.

So, if there is a shred or two of evidence that we can quote in order to back up what we say, then we are in the clear?

M`Lud, I would first like to call Stephanie McIlvain.

http://www.filesavr.com/gregstef

aurelio_-_banned

DaveyL wrote:

I guess I mis-interpreted your insinuation of who (and of course he has a team and entourage so of course it could be "parties" as well as "party") it could have been.

Actually, I really didn`t have the person you were thinking of in mind when I wrote that bit! Still, I`m not feeling much like taking out a libel action today so I will let it pass.

DaveyL

A modern day re-telling of the boy who cried wolf

dave_1

I think the word allegations could be used more as it makes clear no court of law or governing body has found the person guilty of doping...

don key

Clinton never exhaled.

Am I to believe this forums most exciting poster has been bananaed?

dennisn

DaveyL wrote:

A modern day re-telling of the boy who cried wolf

Or was it something about "the sky is falling"? Told you I wasn't going to agree with you again.

Dennis Noward

jimmythecuckoo

At the end of the day I suppose the rules are the rules. It could make the forum go one of two ways.

(1) without loads of drug/lance threads it might go quiet
(2) it might encourage people to post more without fear of thread hijack

dennisn

aurelio wrote:

Jeff Jones wrote:

drenkrom wrote:

Is this to say that it's Future Publishing's policy to automatically respond in the affirmative to legal requests for the identification of users? The terms of service I accepted were clear on that situation if the demanding party is a law enforcement organization, but what happens with a civil case (such a libel), where UK, EU and International laws and past legal judgements make this discovery process non-binding to the website host?

I don't know. I'd have to check with our legal dept on that one. Do you really want to risk it?

I wonder if Future Publishing want to risk being taken to court for damages if they disclosed someone's details contrary to UK, EU and International law?

I also wonder if this new emphasis is due to 'pressure being brought' by some third party or parties...

I'm not so convinced of "pressure.....third party". I see all this as everyone is together on
this forum, with, some, disagreeing with others(sometimes not in a good way, to say the least). Everyone is allowed on. You, me Campy, Shimano, Lance, etc. Any one of us can
bring whatever posts we think are libelous, scandalous, or just plain nasty to the attention of the moderator and he may do what he will do. If I find your "badmouthing"
of me(or anyone) objectionable I can bring this to the moderators attention and he may do
nothing, tell you to knock it off, ban you completely, or whatever. Same applies to me, Campy, and Lance. It wouldn't surprise me if Campy wrote to a moderator to complain about someone "crossing the line". Did a rider write in to complain? If he saw something he didn't like, well maybe he might. Just like you and I can. One thing we all should remember though is, we don't pay the bills for Bike Radar but Campy, Shimano, Lance, etc. do, and they may be able to exert a bit more influence on "policy" at Bike Radar
than you and I ever will. We are at the "low end of the totem pole" as we say here in the states.

Dennis Noward

jimmythecuckoo

I am not even on the pole

dennisn

jimmythecuckoo wrote:

I am not even on the pole

Some one in our office once said. "There are 3 kinds of people who work here. Those
in the loop. Those out of the loop. And those who don't even know there is a loop."
I think I'm the latter but I don't really know for sure.

Dennis Noward

deejay

Up until 1996 Armstrong was a reasonable class of Racing Cyclist and in 1993 he took his chance in pouring rain in Norway to win the World Road Championship.
He was nearly as good as a similar rider Laurent Brochard who was a more attacking rider.
In 1996 Armstrong dropped out of the TDF as that "LIAR" Bjarne Riis made full use of his PED's and won the French Tour.

In 1998 Armstrong returned and placed 4th in the VUELTA and we thought well that's because he had a long lay off, perhaps.

In the 1999 TDF Armstrong climbs some mountains just like Riis did and also won the French Tour.
Where did that form come from as he was not much good at Time Trials up to 1996 either.

We know Armstrong now has a TUE and I believe that excludes him from certain drug tests.

There is nothing he can argue about there, except the TUE implication.

Edit....This is Friday the 13th. !!!!!