More trouble for Team SKY.

shortfall

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

I don't care much for Piers Morgan myself as it goes. Do you think Wiggins will take either of them to court for calling him a cheat?

Nope.
Why feed the trolls when he doen't need to.

Because his reputation and record of achievement from a lifetime in sport looks like it's been ruined by these allegations. If he hasn't cheated or broken any rules then surely it would be worth getting Piers Morgan to take the stand and prove him wrong?

He hasn't broken any rules. Everybody, including the CMS agree upon that.
The only person potentially worth suing is anonymous and protected.
Putting PM centre stage with media is something he would welcome with open arms, regardless of circumstances.

If he has broken no rules and the evidence supports that then he will have no trouble in successfully suing Piers Morgan for slander or defamation. Why wouldn't you sue someone who was publicly calling you a cheat if you weren't a cheat? Particularly if you have the wealth to go to court armed with a top legal team? ( I would imagine that Wiggins is by now a very wealthy man). Piers Morgan I would suspect is also very well off financially, but defending himself in the High Court and facing potentially mammoth costs AND paying damages to Wiggins must surely have the potential to wipe him out. Who wouldn't want to wipe out Piers if they thought they had a cast iron case?

Pross

I reckon it would be easy to crowd fund a court case against Piers Morgan, I’m skint but would find a way to contribute!

mididoctors

Pross wrote:

I reckon it would be easy to crowd fund a court case against Piers Morgan, I’m skint but would find a way to contribute!

that guy is a tw4t. sneaked back into the UK after the phone hacking stuff subsided.

that individual has no place in framing the public discourse.

mididoctors

Wiggins does not have a bottomless pit of cash...he is flush but getting into the strand courts on a civil with the press against you?

Vino'sGhost

mididoctors wrote:

Wiggins does not have a bottomless pit of cash...he is flush but getting into the strand courts on a civil with the press against you?

And theres always the chance he'd lose

mididoctors

Vino'sGhost wrote:

mididoctors wrote:

Wiggins does not have a bottomless pit of cash...he is flush but getting into the strand courts on a civil with the press against you?

And theres always the chance he'd lose

more likely run out of cash before a conclusion.. irrespective of the truth.

DeVlaeminck

He could lose, isn't a civil case only balance of probabilities, Morgan only needs a few convincing experts to say the TUEs weren't medically justified. I've no desire to see Wiggins blow his life savings however much I'd like to see Piers Morgan taken for a couple of million.

shortfall

mididoctors wrote:

Wiggins does not have a bottomless pit of cash...he is flush but getting into the strand courts on a civil with the press against you?

I'm not sure what difference the opinions of some in the Press makes to civil court cases?

Vino'sGhost

mididoctors wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

mididoctors wrote:

Wiggins does not have a bottomless pit of cash...he is flush but getting into the strand courts on a civil with the press against you?

And theres always the chance he'd lose

more likely run out of cash before a conclusion.. irrespective of the truth.

HA thats a bit like UKAD not being able to conclude their case because the laptop was missing

mididoctors

probably better advised to just ignore PM and let it fade

I mean it worked for PM and no one seems to be coming to his defence.

blazing_saddles

Shortfall wrote:

mididoctors wrote:

Wiggins does not have a bottomless pit of cash...he is flush but getting into the strand courts on a civil with the press against you?

I'm not sure what difference the opinions of some in the Press makes to civil court cases?

OK, I'll bite.
Since you think it is easy: how could Wiggins prove this particular negative and win his case?
Baring in mind that his word against mine won't cut it.

chuuurles

reading the goal post adjustments and wiggling in here is hilarious. History repeats and all that.

wants B rad to Sue Piers Morgan.... straight outta the old playbook

Pross

Yes, the tricky bit in suing for slander / libel is that the roles are reversed slightly so the (potentially) injured party may need to prove a certain level of innocence in order to make their case which, even assuming the person is innocent, can be a serious challenge.

larkim

The burden of proof is on the defendant is it not in a defamation case? So all BW would have to prove is that PM said it and that the statements were defamatory. PM would have a defence that the statements were true (for which he would carry the burden of proof).

I would like to see BW go down this route to a degree, but given that the last cyclist to go down that route was fairly well known and got a judgement in his favour which ultimately wasn't entirely robust ;-) I'm not sure he'd want to be tarred with that brush as well as the other ones he's currently being tarred with!!

RichN95.

Pross wrote:

Yes, the tricky bit in suing for slander / libel is that the roles are reversed slightly so the (potentially) injured party may need to prove a certain level of innocence in order to make their case which, even assuming the person is innocent, can be a serious challenge.

WADA, UKAD and the Select Committee have all said there is no evidence of rule breaking. That's pretty good evidence of innocence.

shortfall

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

mididoctors wrote:

Wiggins does not have a bottomless pit of cash...he is flush but getting into the strand courts on a civil with the press against you?

I'm not sure what difference the opinions of some in the Press makes to civil court cases?

OK, I'll bite.
Since you think it is easy: how could Wiggins prove this particular negative and win his case?
Baring in mind that his word against mine won't cut it.

I'm not sure what you mean about proving a negative? Wiggins presumably has to prove that PM's accusation that he is a cheat is false? The evidence for this would presumably be along the lines of your quote here

He hasn't broken any rules. Everybody, including the CMS agree upon that.

.
And what Rich says here

WADA, UKAD and the Select Committee have all said there is no evidence of rule breaking. That's pretty good evidence of innocence.

I know going to court is always a risk but isn't it worth it in this case?

shortfall

chuuurles wrote:

reading the goal post adjustments and wiggling in here is hilarious. History repeats and all that.

wants B rad to Sue Piers Morgan.... straight outta the old playbook

Can you explain this please?

chuuurles

Shortfall wrote:

chuuurles wrote:

reading the goal post adjustments and wiggling in here is hilarious. History repeats and all that.

wants B rad to Sue Piers Morgan.... straight outta the old playbook

Can you explain this please?

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2004/06/16/sports/cycling-armstrong-is-suing-accuser.html?referer=https://www.google.ca/

blazing_saddles

Shortfall wrote:

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

mididoctors wrote:

Wiggins does not have a bottomless pit of cash...he is flush but getting into the strand courts on a civil with the press against you?

I'm not sure what difference the opinions of some in the Press makes to civil court cases?

OK, I'll bite.
Since you think it is easy: how could Wiggins prove this particular negative and win his case?
Baring in mind that his word against mine won't cut it.

I'm not sure what you mean about proving a negative? Wiggins presumably has to prove that PM's accusation that he is a cheat is false? The evidence for this would presumably be along the lines of your quote here

He hasn't broken any rules. Everybody, including the CMS agree upon that.

.
And what Rich says here

WADA, UKAD and the Select Committee have all said there is no evidence of rule breaking. That's pretty good evidence of innocence.

I know going to court is always a risk but isn't it worth it in this case?

Well, I would think it sufficient, but I'm no legal expert.
If it is that simple, I would guess they would settle and never see the inside of a courtroom.

shortfall

chuuurles wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

chuuurles wrote:

reading the goal post adjustments and wiggling in here is hilarious. History repeats and all that.

wants B rad to Sue Piers Morgan.... straight outta the old playbook

Can you explain this please?

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2004/06/16/sports/cycling-armstrong-is-suing-accuser.html?referer=https://www.google.ca/

I'm still unclear. I was already aware of Armstrong's court case against Walsh and The Times which is why I referenced it in an earlier post. What are the goal post adjustments?

Here's the thing. I don't know if Wiggins is a cheat or not but I'm not altogether convinced by all of his and Sky's denials and explanations. This don't forget is in the context of Professional Cycling with all the history of drugs and Team Sky's supposedly revolutionary approach to clean racing. Missing laptops, shoddy record keeping, team Doctor too ill to give evidence etc etc. Walsh knows more than most about this sort of thing I fancy) and Morgan have gone a step further and publicly accused him of cheating.

When I read many of the defences of Wiggins on these threads, his defenders are absolutely certain that he hasn't cheated and also that the Select Committee was incompetent in it's findings. If both of those things are true and I was a clean athlete who's reputation and future earnings capacity was ruined by accusations of cheating, then why wouldn't I seek redress in the courts?

dabber

Shortfall wrote:

chuuurles wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

chuuurles wrote:

reading the goal post adjustments and wiggling in here is hilarious. History repeats and all that.

wants B rad to Sue Piers Morgan.... straight outta the old playbook

Can you explain this please?

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2004/06/16/sports/cycling-armstrong-is-suing-accuser.html?referer=https://www.google.ca/

I'm still unclear. I was already aware of Armstrong's court case against Walsh and The Times which is why I referenced it in an earlier post. What are the goal post adjustments?

Here's the thing. I don't know if Wiggins is a cheat or not but I'm not altogether convinced by all of his and Sky's denials and explanations. This don't forget is in the context of Professional Cycling with all the history of drugs and Team Sky's supposedly revolutionary approach to clean racing. Missing laptops, shoddy record keeping, team Doctor too ill to give evidence etc etc. Walsh knows more than most about this sort of thing I fancy) and Morgan have gone a step further and publicly accused him of cheating.

When I read many of the defences of Wiggins on these threads, his defenders are absolutely certain that he hasn't cheated and also that the Select Committee was incompetent in it's findings. If both of those things are true and I was a clean athlete who's reputation and future earnings capacity was ruined by accusations of cheating, then why wouldn't I seek redress in the courts?

Because if you fail in persuading the court that your are innocent you risk both you and your family's financial security.
It's risky!

RichN95.

Dabber wrote:

Because if you fail in persuading the court that your are innocent you risk both you and your family's financial security.
It's risky!

I'm not sure it works like that. If I declare that Dabber has sex with goats, the onus is not on you to persuade the court that something hasn't happened, the onus is on me to show that it has.

iainf72

Part 2 and 3 of Lionel Birnie's blog is excellent.

I'm sure the fanboi's will manage to rationalise Kimbo's non-reporting around VDV.

dabber

RichN95 wrote:

Dabber wrote:

Because if you fail in persuading the court that your are innocent you risk both you and your family's financial security.
It's risky!

I'm not sure it works like that. If I declare that Dabber has sex with goats, the onus is not on you to persuade the court that something hasn't happened, the onus is on me to show that it has.

Hey, leave my goat alone.... You may be right (about burden of proof) but either way... it's risky if you're playing with your own money.

mididoctors

RichN95 wrote:

Dabber wrote:

Because if you fail in persuading the court that your are innocent you risk both you and your family's financial security.
It's risky!

I'm not sure it works like that. If I declare that Dabber has sex with goats, the onus is not on you to persuade the court that something hasn't happened, the onus is on me to show that it has.

civil is a balance of probability but that can work either way.

RichN95.

iainf72 wrote:

Part 2 and 3 of Lionel Birnie's blog is excellent.

Although I have the question that why didn't he have the rant he had on today's podcast about Sky not living up to the image the sold to the public when they were applying for Uran's TUE. It seems he had no ethical problem with it in 2011, but does now. In his eyes it seems Sky's crime is not adhering to the media's 2018 version of ethics in 2011.

mididoctors

RichN95 wrote:

Pross wrote:

Yes, the tricky bit in suing for slander / libel is that the roles are reversed slightly so the (potentially) injured party may need to prove a certain level of innocence in order to make their case which, even assuming the person is innocent, can be a serious challenge.

WADA, UKAD and the Select Committee have all said there is no evidence of rule breaking. That's pretty good evidence of innocence.

it is.

RichN95.

mididoctors wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Dabber wrote:

Because if you fail in persuading the court that your are innocent you risk both you and your family's financial security.
It's risky!

I'm not sure it works like that. If I declare that Dabber has sex with goats, the onus is not on you to persuade the court that something hasn't happened, the onus is on me to show that it has.

civil is a balance of probability but that can work either way.

Which is why having all the arbitors of the rules saying that rules have not been broken is basically a golden ticket. No amount of 'expert' witness testimony from Michael Rasmussen and Ross Tucker is going to overcome that.

No_Ta_Doctor

iainf72 wrote:

Part 2 and 3 of Lionel Birnie's blog is excellent.

I'm sure the fanboi's will manage to rationalise Kimbo's non-reporting around VDV.

Kimmage claims in a tweet that he did write about VDV, but it's behind a paywall so can't really verify.

Note: I'm as much a Kimmage fanboi as iainf72 is a SkyBot.

RichN95.

No tA Doctor wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Part 2 and 3 of Lionel Birnie's blog is excellent.

I'm sure the fanboi's will manage to rationalise Kimbo's non-reporting around VDV.

Kimmage claims in a tweet that he did write about VDV, but it's behind a paywall so can't really verify.

Note: I'm as much a Kimmage fanboi as iainf72 is a SkyBot.

He wrote about him but he didn't state that he had doped, which was Birnie's point.