The Sunday Times lost the Court battle on how their article should be interpreted. The High Court decided what they had written was saying Armstrong was "a fraud, a cheat and a liar". And on that basis they decided to settle out of Court and say they had not meant to accuse him of being a fraud, a cheat and a liar.. They could have gone through the subsequent Court process in which case they could potentially go for an Appeal now on the basis that Armstrong had lied in Court. But since they decided not to, and the Court case that did take place was about interpreting what the Sunday Times had written, not whether it was correct and not or whether Armstrong was indeed a fraud, a cheat and a liar, I suspect it will be very difficult for them to come back on it just as it will be for Armstrong downstream to challenge the USADA finding having decided to not challenge it now. BICBW
Armstrong charged and banned
- Thread starter yello
- Start date
- Status
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
The Sunday Times lost the Court battle on how their article should be interpreted. The High Court decided what they had written was saying Armstrong was "a fraud, a cheat and a liar". And on that basis they decided to settle out of Court and say they had not meant to accuse him of being a fraud, a cheat and a liar.. They could have gone through the subsequent Court process in which case they could potentially go for an Appeal now on the basis that Armstrong had lied in Court. But since they decided not to, and the Court case that did take place was about interpreting what the Sunday Times had written, not whether it was correct and not or whether Armstrong was indeed a fraud, a cheat and a liar, I suspect it will be very difficult for them to come back on it just as it will be for Armstrong downstream to challenge the USADA finding having decided to not challenge it now. BICBW
Chuffy
Veteran
- Location
- On the banks of the Exe
Yes, interesting indeed given that many here are convinced by the stories the article starts with and the author admits to not liking LA and not being one of his favourite journalists but then says:
During an investigation that played out over several months—involving dozens of interviews and careful examination of Livestrong’s public financial records—I found no evidence that Armstrong has done anything illegal in his role as the face of the organization. As far as I can tell, he paid for the private jet himself—which is now for sale, by the way, along with his ranch outside Austin—and he’s apparently been scrupulous about his expenditures as they relate to the nonprofit. When Armstrong travels on Livestrong business, the foundation insists, he picks up his own tabs.
Have you read Godwin's Law? I suggest you do as I've never heard it being invoked by mention of the House Committee for Un-American Activities before - and for a very obvious reason.
N.B. See also in your link above: Godwin's law itself can be abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole when the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate
lukesdad
Guest
Chuffy
Veteran
- Location
- On the banks of the Exe
No idea.2010200 said:
Noodley
Guest
I wonder if they'll have a "Buy one, get one phantom copy free" deal?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/...&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=317819927&pf_rd_i=468294
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/...&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=317819927&pf_rd_i=468294
lukesdad
Guest
Your sig line ?
MacB
Lover of things that come in 3's
- Location
- Farnborough, Hampshire
So folks, what do we think, did he dope or didn't he? 
That's where you agree to plead guilty in return for a concession from the prosecution. What's it called when you agree to offer someone else's guilt in return for a concession from the prosecutor?
Did you read this bit in your link?
Theoretical work based on the prisoner's dilemma is one reason that, in many countries, plea bargaining is forbidden. Often, precisely the prisoner's dilemma scenario applies: it is in the interest of both suspects to confess and testify against the other suspect, irrespective of the innocence of the accused. Arguably, the worst case is when only one party is guilty: here, the innocent one is unlikely to confess, while the guilty one is likely to confess and testify against the innocent.
Chuffy
Veteran
- Location
- On the banks of the Exe
No. Just my standard response to your posts. Other alternatives are 'what the 'ck are you on about?' and 'for god's sake, please make some sense'.
tigger
Über Member
Not sure if I agree with your interpretation there. Once Armstrong issued a libel case The Sunday Times started back tracking as it felt it didn't have enough evidence to support doping accusations in court (i.e. what Smoking Joe said). The Sunday Times (News Int) tried to hide behind the process (sound familiar?) and argue that their published article did not intend to characterise Armstrong as a "fraud, a cheat and a liar" - i.e. it wasn't libellous or defamatory. The Court of Appeal hearing decided against News Int. So... at that point they had two options... plough on with an unbelievably expensive full High Court libel trial or, in the absense of feeling confident, settle out of court. They decided on the latter given the lack of evidence at the time.
Libel and Defamation are incredibly complex areas of the law that I certainly don't understand and I suspect the same of you and pretty much anyone else who will ever read this thread. However, the foundation of any successful libel claim is based around accusations/statements being false. If they are not false, there is no libel.
Only News Int and Armstrong's team will know the terms of the out of court settlement and whether this can be revisited.
Chuffy
Veteran
- Location
- On the banks of the Exe
I'm going to get my twin to read it for me. Etc, etc...
- Status
