jackaninny
08-07-06, 09:26 PM
...and the mob stops screaming 'witch!' and goes back to their how-can-anyone-ride-like-that-because-i-can't-ride-like-that-hand-wringing - who does floyd sue first and how big is the check he deposits?
View Full Version : let's just say landis proves his innocence...
DogBoy
08-07-06, 10:03 PM
worry about it after he proves he's not guilty...
Unfortunately, in this case, that's what has to happen, and frankly, I think he's going to have a tough time doing it if people like me (US born fan converted through a stellar display of courage and fight to never give up until its over) think he's guilty...
Unfortunately, in this case, that's what has to happen, and frankly, I think he's going to have a tough time doing it if people like me (US born fan converted through a stellar display of courage and fight to never give up until its over) think he's guilty...
Trevor98
08-08-06, 04:33 AM
The UCI gets sued and Landis retires. The UCI violated their own confidentiality rules and should be punished. They also have deep pockets.
EURO
08-08-06, 06:15 AM
...and the mob stops screaming 'witch!' and goes back to their how-can-anyone-ride-like-that-because-i-can't-ride-like-that-hand-wringing - who does floyd sue first and how big is the check he deposits?
Dude, he cheated. Not even Floyd himself thinks he's got much of a chance.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060807/ap_on_sp_ot/cyc_landis_doping;_ylt=AtCze3MYZkWiWNET77UhnctI2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--
"By what I've seen so far, I don't expect to get a fair chance," he said in a telephone interview from California.
Plus I think the international governing body of cycling could get better lawyers than the jobless and never really that rich Landis.
Dude, he cheated. Not even Floyd himself thinks he's got much of a chance.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060807/ap_on_sp_ot/cyc_landis_doping;_ylt=AtCze3MYZkWiWNET77UhnctI2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--
"By what I've seen so far, I don't expect to get a fair chance," he said in a telephone interview from California.
Plus I think the international governing body of cycling could get better lawyers than the jobless and never really that rich Landis.
merlinextraligh
08-08-06, 06:34 AM
The UCI gets sued and Landis retires. The UCI violated their own confidentiality rules and should be punished. They also have deep pockets.,
Even if he somehow beats this, He has no damage from the alleged leaks to the press. All the information that has come out would have come out anyway under the normal process. The fact that an accurate report of a test was made in the press a few days before it maybe should have been doesn't give him an action for damages. The harm to LAndis comes form the test results themselves, not from the fact they were arguably reported before they should have been. And even if he avids sanctions by placing doubt on the test, it doesn't necessarily give him an action for damages.
People that are accused of crimes, and then are acquitted, don't then get to sue the government.
Likewise here, even if Landis somehow avoids sanctions, its extremely unlikely he would ever prevail in action for damages against the UCI, or the USADA.
Even if he somehow beats this, He has no damage from the alleged leaks to the press. All the information that has come out would have come out anyway under the normal process. The fact that an accurate report of a test was made in the press a few days before it maybe should have been doesn't give him an action for damages. The harm to LAndis comes form the test results themselves, not from the fact they were arguably reported before they should have been. And even if he avids sanctions by placing doubt on the test, it doesn't necessarily give him an action for damages.
People that are accused of crimes, and then are acquitted, don't then get to sue the government.
Likewise here, even if Landis somehow avoids sanctions, its extremely unlikely he would ever prevail in action for damages against the UCI, or the USADA.
dutret
08-08-06, 07:35 AM
, People that are accused of crimes, and then are acquitted, don't then get to sue the government.
Likewise here, even if Landis somehow avoids sanctions, its extremely unlikely he would ever prevail in action for damages against the UCI, or the USADA.
Not entirely malicious prosecution is a tort.
Likewise if landis could show that the UCI, Tour organizers or the the lab tampered with his specimens he could easily sue.
Likewise here, even if Landis somehow avoids sanctions, its extremely unlikely he would ever prevail in action for damages against the UCI, or the USADA.
Not entirely malicious prosecution is a tort.
Likewise if landis could show that the UCI, Tour organizers or the the lab tampered with his specimens he could easily sue.
edmcnierney
08-08-06, 07:47 AM
I don't buy the "it would all have come out anyway" argument. The UCI prides itself on unwavering adherence to the rules, and severe penalties for those who don't follow the rules. Good for them.
I expect them to be held to the same standard, and if they don't follow the rules on process and disclosure, they should be subject to severe penalties, too. The excuse "we leaked it to the press because we knew the lab we hired would leak it anyway" would sound pretty darn lame coming from a cyclist!
I expect them to be held to the same standard, and if they don't follow the rules on process and disclosure, they should be subject to severe penalties, too. The excuse "we leaked it to the press because we knew the lab we hired would leak it anyway" would sound pretty darn lame coming from a cyclist!
sweetjt
08-08-06, 11:28 AM
...and the mob stops screaming 'witch!' and goes back to their how-can-anyone-ride-like-that-because-i-can't-ride-like-that-hand-wringing - who does floyd sue first and how big is the check he deposits?
Let's say the easter bunny and santa claus get married, and give birth to the tooth fairy . . .
Let's say the easter bunny and santa claus get married, and give birth to the tooth fairy . . .
DogBoy
08-08-06, 01:26 PM
Plus I think the international governing body of cycling could get better lawyers than the jobless and never really that rich Landis.
You clearly do not understand the way that the US tort system works.
You clearly do not understand the way that the US tort system works.
DogBoy
08-08-06, 01:29 PM
People that are accused of crimes, and then are acquitted, don't then get to sue the government.
Likewise here, even if Landis somehow avoids sanctions, its extremely unlikely he would ever prevail in action for damages against the UCI, or the USADA.
The UCI and USADA do NOT have the immunity from torts that that the US Govt has, so I think if Landis can show harm resulting from the leaks (assuming he can prove he's innocent) then I think he does have a case if its tried here in the US.
Likewise here, even if Landis somehow avoids sanctions, its extremely unlikely he would ever prevail in action for damages against the UCI, or the USADA.
The UCI and USADA do NOT have the immunity from torts that that the US Govt has, so I think if Landis can show harm resulting from the leaks (assuming he can prove he's innocent) then I think he does have a case if its tried here in the US.
jackaninny
08-08-06, 01:31 PM
,
Even if he somehow beats this, He has no damage from the alleged leaks to the press. All the information that has come out would have come out anyway under the normal process. The fact that an accurate report of a test was made in the press a few days before it maybe should have been doesn't give him an action for damages. The harm to LAndis comes form the test results themselves, not from the fact they were arguably reported before they should have been. And even if he avids sanctions by placing doubt on the test, it doesn't necessarily give him an action for damages.
People that are accused of crimes, and then are acquitted, don't then get to sue the government.
Likewise here, even if Landis somehow avoids sanctions, its extremely unlikely he would ever prevail in action for damages against the UCI, or the USADA.
i'd say loss of endorsement deals not to mention his phonak contract fall under damages. i would also think that the leaking of the information (not a first for this lab) prevented landis from being able to mount a defense.
i'm still amazed at how many people are ready to burn this guy and his career at the stake even before he gets a chance to defend himself.
Even if he somehow beats this, He has no damage from the alleged leaks to the press. All the information that has come out would have come out anyway under the normal process. The fact that an accurate report of a test was made in the press a few days before it maybe should have been doesn't give him an action for damages. The harm to LAndis comes form the test results themselves, not from the fact they were arguably reported before they should have been. And even if he avids sanctions by placing doubt on the test, it doesn't necessarily give him an action for damages.
People that are accused of crimes, and then are acquitted, don't then get to sue the government.
Likewise here, even if Landis somehow avoids sanctions, its extremely unlikely he would ever prevail in action for damages against the UCI, or the USADA.
i'd say loss of endorsement deals not to mention his phonak contract fall under damages. i would also think that the leaking of the information (not a first for this lab) prevented landis from being able to mount a defense.
i'm still amazed at how many people are ready to burn this guy and his career at the stake even before he gets a chance to defend himself.
EURO
08-08-06, 03:14 PM
You clearly do not understand the way that the US tort system works.
You are correct. I don't even know what the US tort system is, let alone how it works.
You are correct. I don't even know what the US tort system is, let alone how it works.
Keith99
08-08-06, 03:52 PM
i'd say loss of endorsement deals not to mention his phonak contract fall under damages. i would also think that the leaking of the information (not a first for this lab) prevented landis from being able to mount a defense.
i'm still amazed at how many people are ready to burn this guy and his career at the stake even before he gets a chance to defend himself.
Landis would still have nothing. First you need a cause of action. Just releasing information is not a cause of action. On the slander liable front you have to show either that those releasing the information knew it was false or should have known it was false. Neither has much chance in this case. Also you have to try to mitigate damages. In the case of endorements that means going out and getting available endorsements. IF Landis comes up clean he is a martyr and endorsemetns are no problem. If on the other side he skates on technicalities then his cause of action is gone as there would be no way to make the case that information was blatantly false.
In short he has nothing unless it can be shown someone doctored the sample. And in that case his case is against that person, not the wide world.
i'm still amazed at how many people are ready to burn this guy and his career at the stake even before he gets a chance to defend himself.
Landis would still have nothing. First you need a cause of action. Just releasing information is not a cause of action. On the slander liable front you have to show either that those releasing the information knew it was false or should have known it was false. Neither has much chance in this case. Also you have to try to mitigate damages. In the case of endorements that means going out and getting available endorsements. IF Landis comes up clean he is a martyr and endorsemetns are no problem. If on the other side he skates on technicalities then his cause of action is gone as there would be no way to make the case that information was blatantly false.
In short he has nothing unless it can be shown someone doctored the sample. And in that case his case is against that person, not the wide world.
edzo
08-08-06, 04:00 PM
what does us tort have anything to do with anything ?
his lawsuit would be in france
his lawsuit would be in france
DogBoy
08-09-06, 06:12 AM
what does us tort have anything to do with anything ?
his lawsuit would be in france
Not if he wants to win. UCI could be sued from the US. The lab probably not, but in this case, its the UCI that leaked the information first.
his lawsuit would be in france
Not if he wants to win. UCI could be sued from the US. The lab probably not, but in this case, its the UCI that leaked the information first.
merlinextraligh
08-09-06, 06:57 AM
Ok, as far as understanding the US Tort system, I've done tort litigation for 22 years . Now for the tort of malicious prosecution, first, it generally is brought against private individuals pushing charges, not the against the goverment, who have a signigifcant degree of prosecutorial immuninty. Moreover, it requires, as the name implies malice, i.e. an impermissable purpose, and the lack of a good faith basis to bring the charges. Where there is probable cause to bring the charge, you don't get to sue the government just because your acquitted, which is what I said in the first post.
Now for LAndis' situation, there is clearly a good faith basis for the USADA to pursue the charges, i.e. 4 positive drug tests. If Landis can somehow cast enough doubt to a void sanction, it still doesn't give him a tort cause of action against the USADA or the lab, or the UCI.
Moreover, he has jurisidictional problems. An action against the UCI would likely have to be brought in a European venue. ( the UCI is not based in the US, and the alleged leak occurred in France. Even if you could establish sufficient minimum contacts for jurisdiction, there would be major problems with venue, forum non conveniens, comity, and I'm betting contractual forum selection clauses.) Additionally, he is likely to have to pursue any claim through Arbitration. Now, I'm speculating, but I'd bet he is contractually obligated to artibrate any claim against the UCI or the USADA.( I'm basiing this on the fact that challenges to drug testing sanctions are arbitrated before the COurt of Arbitration for Sport) A European arbitration panel is much less likely to award Landis damages, than an American jury.
The other possibility is an action against the UCI, based upon invasion of privacy for the alleged premature leak of the A sample results. However, this claim fails the element of causation. The test results would have become public after the B sample anyway. Any harm to Landis comes from the test results themselves, not from the timing of their release. And again he has the problem that the forum would likey be a European arbitration panel.
Finally, this all assumes that he somehow beats the sanctions. Given the 4 positive tests, the odds are extremely low that he isn't sanctioned, and properly so.
Now for LAndis' situation, there is clearly a good faith basis for the USADA to pursue the charges, i.e. 4 positive drug tests. If Landis can somehow cast enough doubt to a void sanction, it still doesn't give him a tort cause of action against the USADA or the lab, or the UCI.
Moreover, he has jurisidictional problems. An action against the UCI would likely have to be brought in a European venue. ( the UCI is not based in the US, and the alleged leak occurred in France. Even if you could establish sufficient minimum contacts for jurisdiction, there would be major problems with venue, forum non conveniens, comity, and I'm betting contractual forum selection clauses.) Additionally, he is likely to have to pursue any claim through Arbitration. Now, I'm speculating, but I'd bet he is contractually obligated to artibrate any claim against the UCI or the USADA.( I'm basiing this on the fact that challenges to drug testing sanctions are arbitrated before the COurt of Arbitration for Sport) A European arbitration panel is much less likely to award Landis damages, than an American jury.
The other possibility is an action against the UCI, based upon invasion of privacy for the alleged premature leak of the A sample results. However, this claim fails the element of causation. The test results would have become public after the B sample anyway. Any harm to Landis comes from the test results themselves, not from the timing of their release. And again he has the problem that the forum would likey be a European arbitration panel.
Finally, this all assumes that he somehow beats the sanctions. Given the 4 positive tests, the odds are extremely low that he isn't sanctioned, and properly so.
flythebike
08-09-06, 07:00 AM
Who cares?
This is all let the horse out of the barn after it has burned down. His days on the bike are over, probably for two years.
I'm annoyed at how this case proceded but the end result is the same: a positive test.
Floyd is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt at this point, unless he can show some cause to point to the contrary.
Simply saying he doesn't trust the lab or that he may have unknowlingly ingested something isn't going to lessen his ban. Again, Vuelta 2008 look out, here comes Floyd Landis!
This is all let the horse out of the barn after it has burned down. His days on the bike are over, probably for two years.
I'm annoyed at how this case proceded but the end result is the same: a positive test.
Floyd is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt at this point, unless he can show some cause to point to the contrary.
Simply saying he doesn't trust the lab or that he may have unknowlingly ingested something isn't going to lessen his ban. Again, Vuelta 2008 look out, here comes Floyd Landis!
merlinextraligh
08-09-06, 07:11 AM
Again, Vuelta 2008 look out, here comes Floyd Landis!
With the 4 year pro tour ban, I think it would have to be Vuelta 2010, which might be a stretch.
With the 4 year pro tour ban, I think it would have to be Vuelta 2010, which might be a stretch.
DogBoy
08-09-06, 07:20 AM
<legal stuff>
There you go talking about reality ;) . The reality of the situation is that Landis has no case to sue anyone (like you said). I thought we were talking about the hypothetical sutiation where Landis proves he is innocent...meaning that the leaks/etc. did harm to him.
I said EURO didn't understand the tort system because he/she assumed the plaintiff couldn't find good laywers. With contingent billing, any idiot can find a supurb lawyer if the case is not terribly far fetched defendant has significant $$$.
There you go talking about reality ;) . The reality of the situation is that Landis has no case to sue anyone (like you said). I thought we were talking about the hypothetical sutiation where Landis proves he is innocent...meaning that the leaks/etc. did harm to him.
I said EURO didn't understand the tort system because he/she assumed the plaintiff couldn't find good laywers. With contingent billing, any idiot can find a supurb lawyer if the case is not terribly far fetched defendant has significant $$$.
EURO
09-20-07, 01:59 PM
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
CyLowe97
09-20-07, 02:00 PM
Look what the WADA dragged in!
Welcome back, EURO!!!
Welcome back, EURO!!!
skanking biker
09-20-07, 02:17 PM
Dude, he cheated. Not even Floyd himself thinks he's got much of a chance.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060807/ap_on_sp_ot/cyc_landis_doping;_ylt=AtCze3MYZkWiWNET77UhnctI2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--
"By what I've seen so far, I don't expect to get a fair chance," he said in a telephone interview from California.
Plus I think the international governing body of cycling could get better lawyers than the jobless and never really that rich Landis.
The law firm Landis retained, Gibson Dunn, is regarded by some to be one of the best and most expensive law firms in the country
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060807/ap_on_sp_ot/cyc_landis_doping;_ylt=AtCze3MYZkWiWNET77UhnctI2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--
"By what I've seen so far, I don't expect to get a fair chance," he said in a telephone interview from California.
Plus I think the international governing body of cycling could get better lawyers than the jobless and never really that rich Landis.
The law firm Landis retained, Gibson Dunn, is regarded by some to be one of the best and most expensive law firms in the country
skanking biker
09-20-07, 02:20 PM
Ok, as far as understanding the US Tort system, I've done tort litigation for 22 years . Now for the tort of malicious prosecution, first, it generally is brought against private individuals pushing charges, not the against the goverment, who have a signigifcant degree of prosecutorial immuninty. Moreover, it requires, as the name implies malice, i.e. an impermissable purpose, and the lack of a good faith basis to bring the charges. Where there is probable cause to bring the charge, you don't get to sue the government just because your acquitted, which is what I said in the first post.
Now for LAndis' situation, there is clearly a good faith basis for the USADA to pursue the charges, i.e. 4 positive drug tests. If Landis can somehow cast enough doubt to a void sanction, it still doesn't give him a tort cause of action against the USADA or the lab, or the UCI.
Moreover, he has jurisidictional problems. An action against the UCI would likely have to be brought in a European venue. ( the UCI is not based in the US, and the alleged leak occurred in France. Even if you could establish sufficient minimum contacts for jurisdiction, there would be major problems with venue, forum non conveniens, comity, and I'm betting contractual forum selection clauses.) Additionally, he is likely to have to pursue any claim through Arbitration. Now, I'm speculating, but I'd bet he is contractually obligated to artibrate any claim against the UCI or the USADA.( I'm basiing this on the fact that challenges to drug testing sanctions are arbitrated before the COurt of Arbitration for Sport) A European arbitration panel is much less likely to award Landis damages, than an American jury.
The other possibility is an action against the UCI, based upon invasion of privacy for the alleged premature leak of the A sample results. However, this claim fails the element of causation. The test results would have become public after the B sample anyway. Any harm to Landis comes from the test results themselves, not from the timing of their release. And again he has the problem that the forum would likey be a European arbitration panel.
Finally, this all assumes that he somehow beats the sanctions. Given the 4 positive tests, the odds are extremely low that he isn't sanctioned, and properly so.
Nice summary. I concur in your assessment.
Now for LAndis' situation, there is clearly a good faith basis for the USADA to pursue the charges, i.e. 4 positive drug tests. If Landis can somehow cast enough doubt to a void sanction, it still doesn't give him a tort cause of action against the USADA or the lab, or the UCI.
Moreover, he has jurisidictional problems. An action against the UCI would likely have to be brought in a European venue. ( the UCI is not based in the US, and the alleged leak occurred in France. Even if you could establish sufficient minimum contacts for jurisdiction, there would be major problems with venue, forum non conveniens, comity, and I'm betting contractual forum selection clauses.) Additionally, he is likely to have to pursue any claim through Arbitration. Now, I'm speculating, but I'd bet he is contractually obligated to artibrate any claim against the UCI or the USADA.( I'm basiing this on the fact that challenges to drug testing sanctions are arbitrated before the COurt of Arbitration for Sport) A European arbitration panel is much less likely to award Landis damages, than an American jury.
The other possibility is an action against the UCI, based upon invasion of privacy for the alleged premature leak of the A sample results. However, this claim fails the element of causation. The test results would have become public after the B sample anyway. Any harm to Landis comes from the test results themselves, not from the timing of their release. And again he has the problem that the forum would likey be a European arbitration panel.
Finally, this all assumes that he somehow beats the sanctions. Given the 4 positive tests, the odds are extremely low that he isn't sanctioned, and properly so.
Nice summary. I concur in your assessment.
Trevor98
09-20-07, 03:18 PM
Even if he somehow beats this, He has no damage from the alleged leaks to the press. All the information that has come out would have come out anyway under the normal process. The fact that an accurate report of a test was made in the press a few days before it maybe should have been doesn't give him an action for damages. The harm to LAndis comes form the test results themselves, not from the fact they were arguably reported before they should have been. And even if he avids sanctions by placing doubt on the test, it doesn't necessarily give him an action for damages.
People that are accused of crimes, and then are acquitted, don't then get to sue the government.
Likewise here, even if Landis somehow avoids sanctions, its extremely unlikely he would ever prevail in action for damages against the UCI, or the USADA.
1) Was the B sample compromised by the leak (unknowable)? The easy assertion is that the lab would have lost prestige if the B sample didn't match the leaked A sample so they made sure the B sample matched- one reason for the confidentiality rules. Enough of a theory to merit a trial. Trials are always unpredictable and come to very weird verdicts (see Phil Spector).
2) People do get to sue the government when the government maliciously screws up and violates certain rules. Additionally, while USADA is funded by the US taxpayers it is not the government and is not protected from lawsuits as the government is. As a citizen of California those courts can get involved so all bets are off on what happens there.
Merlinextraligh, you don't get to separate USADA from the LNDD lab from the UCI. They are all joined in the prosecution of Landis. If one is a bad actor the other is a conspirator. USADA had their chance to disavow the LNDD lab's work and the UCI leak but they have now stood behind the evidence and accepted it as truth. They can't run from it now. Again, a good lawyer could argue that the B sample results were altered by the leak in order to save face for the lab.
I don't know about "malicious prosecution" as USADA and Co. aren't prosecutors but rather employment licensing bodies. Different laws apply and malicious prosecution laws are likely irrelevant.
Geographic jurisdiction isn't a problem. Landis is a resident of California, the hearing was in California, USADA is a US body, the USAC (the holder of his cycling license) is a US body so where is the problem?
The tort laws in play here are mostly California's over protective labor laws and extremely generous general tort laws.
People that are accused of crimes, and then are acquitted, don't then get to sue the government.
Likewise here, even if Landis somehow avoids sanctions, its extremely unlikely he would ever prevail in action for damages against the UCI, or the USADA.
1) Was the B sample compromised by the leak (unknowable)? The easy assertion is that the lab would have lost prestige if the B sample didn't match the leaked A sample so they made sure the B sample matched- one reason for the confidentiality rules. Enough of a theory to merit a trial. Trials are always unpredictable and come to very weird verdicts (see Phil Spector).
2) People do get to sue the government when the government maliciously screws up and violates certain rules. Additionally, while USADA is funded by the US taxpayers it is not the government and is not protected from lawsuits as the government is. As a citizen of California those courts can get involved so all bets are off on what happens there.
Merlinextraligh, you don't get to separate USADA from the LNDD lab from the UCI. They are all joined in the prosecution of Landis. If one is a bad actor the other is a conspirator. USADA had their chance to disavow the LNDD lab's work and the UCI leak but they have now stood behind the evidence and accepted it as truth. They can't run from it now. Again, a good lawyer could argue that the B sample results were altered by the leak in order to save face for the lab.
I don't know about "malicious prosecution" as USADA and Co. aren't prosecutors but rather employment licensing bodies. Different laws apply and malicious prosecution laws are likely irrelevant.
Geographic jurisdiction isn't a problem. Landis is a resident of California, the hearing was in California, USADA is a US body, the USAC (the holder of his cycling license) is a US body so where is the problem?
The tort laws in play here are mostly California's over protective labor laws and extremely generous general tort laws.
skanking biker
09-20-07, 03:44 PM
2) People do get to sue the government when the government maliciously screws up and violates certain rules.
Wrong-you only get to sue the government if it has waived sovereign immunity, regardless of how bad it "screws-up." Any suit against the US government is subject to the Tort Claims Act.
Additionally, while USADA is funded by the US taxpayers it is not the government and is not protected from lawsuits as the government is. As a citizen of California those courts can get involved so all bets are off on what happens there.
Wrong--the USADA is a governmental agency. I am not quite sure whether it implements U.S. law or U.S. obligations under foreign treaties, but it is nonetheless an administrative agency.
Merlinextraligh, you don't get to separate USADA from the LNDD lab from the UCI. They are all joined in the prosecution of Landis. If one is a bad actor the other is a conspirator. USADA had their chance to disavow the LNDD lab's work and the UCI leak but they have now stood behind the evidence and accepted it as truth. They can't run from it now. Again, a good lawyer could argue that the B sample results were altered by the leak in order to save face for the lab.
Wrong again. To try and simplify what the arbitrators did here---it is akin to someone being arrested for possession of drugs and the police screwing up chain-of-custody. Even if there were evidence that the police were horribly incompetent and failed to follow any of their procedures, you can still get convicted if there is independent evidence of your commission of the crime. Here, the arbitrators concluded it was essentially "harmless error" that the lab screwed up the first sample because the second sample was independent evidence of doping.
Just because Landis alleged the lab screwed up his test doesn't mean there is a "conspiracy" or that you can sue the body prosecuting the offense. Again, in my example, I can't sue the prosecutor for filing charges on me simply because the cops screwed up, so long as the prosecutor has enough evidence to justify charging me. The issue of whether they screwed up is a disputed issue of fact to be determined at trial. You can't sue someone simply because they dispute a fact and you proved them wrong at trial.
I don't know about "malicious prosecution" as USADA and Co. aren't prosecutors but rather employment licensing bodies. Different laws apply and malicious prosecution laws are likely irrelevant.
Again wrong. As a previous poster indicated, most of the "rules" governing this are arbitration rules to which an althete agrees as part of his contract to compete in a sport as part of a team. It is virtually impossible to escape an arbitration clause, or even attempt to overturn an arbitration decision in a court of law. Most jurisdictions require proof of actual malice, bribery, or some severe form of misconduct on the part of the arbitrators. Even if they interpret the law wrong or make questionable rulings, by agreeing to arbitration in your contract, you waive your right to pursue any claims in court.
Geographic jurisdiction isn't a problem. Landis is a resident of California, the hearing was in California, USADA is a US body, the USAC (the holder of his cycling license) is a US body so where is the problem?
You are confusing venue with jurisdiction
The tort laws in play here are mostly California's over protective labor laws and extremely generous general tort laws.
Cycling is governed by international rules, national rules, and contractual rules. It doesn't make a hill o beans how "generous" california laws are--they simply don't apply. You have issues of federal pre-emption, and again, an athlete's contract most likely has a choice of law provision.
Wrong-you only get to sue the government if it has waived sovereign immunity, regardless of how bad it "screws-up." Any suit against the US government is subject to the Tort Claims Act.
Additionally, while USADA is funded by the US taxpayers it is not the government and is not protected from lawsuits as the government is. As a citizen of California those courts can get involved so all bets are off on what happens there.
Wrong--the USADA is a governmental agency. I am not quite sure whether it implements U.S. law or U.S. obligations under foreign treaties, but it is nonetheless an administrative agency.
Merlinextraligh, you don't get to separate USADA from the LNDD lab from the UCI. They are all joined in the prosecution of Landis. If one is a bad actor the other is a conspirator. USADA had their chance to disavow the LNDD lab's work and the UCI leak but they have now stood behind the evidence and accepted it as truth. They can't run from it now. Again, a good lawyer could argue that the B sample results were altered by the leak in order to save face for the lab.
Wrong again. To try and simplify what the arbitrators did here---it is akin to someone being arrested for possession of drugs and the police screwing up chain-of-custody. Even if there were evidence that the police were horribly incompetent and failed to follow any of their procedures, you can still get convicted if there is independent evidence of your commission of the crime. Here, the arbitrators concluded it was essentially "harmless error" that the lab screwed up the first sample because the second sample was independent evidence of doping.
Just because Landis alleged the lab screwed up his test doesn't mean there is a "conspiracy" or that you can sue the body prosecuting the offense. Again, in my example, I can't sue the prosecutor for filing charges on me simply because the cops screwed up, so long as the prosecutor has enough evidence to justify charging me. The issue of whether they screwed up is a disputed issue of fact to be determined at trial. You can't sue someone simply because they dispute a fact and you proved them wrong at trial.
I don't know about "malicious prosecution" as USADA and Co. aren't prosecutors but rather employment licensing bodies. Different laws apply and malicious prosecution laws are likely irrelevant.
Again wrong. As a previous poster indicated, most of the "rules" governing this are arbitration rules to which an althete agrees as part of his contract to compete in a sport as part of a team. It is virtually impossible to escape an arbitration clause, or even attempt to overturn an arbitration decision in a court of law. Most jurisdictions require proof of actual malice, bribery, or some severe form of misconduct on the part of the arbitrators. Even if they interpret the law wrong or make questionable rulings, by agreeing to arbitration in your contract, you waive your right to pursue any claims in court.
Geographic jurisdiction isn't a problem. Landis is a resident of California, the hearing was in California, USADA is a US body, the USAC (the holder of his cycling license) is a US body so where is the problem?
You are confusing venue with jurisdiction
The tort laws in play here are mostly California's over protective labor laws and extremely generous general tort laws.
Cycling is governed by international rules, national rules, and contractual rules. It doesn't make a hill o beans how "generous" california laws are--they simply don't apply. You have issues of federal pre-emption, and again, an athlete's contract most likely has a choice of law provision.
Hezz
09-20-07, 05:49 PM
I cannot see how Landis could persue his case accept in international courts. And I don't know what kinds of jurisdiction they have over these bodies.
However, I believe he may be able to sue LNDD in the French courts maybe?
merlinextraligh,
In spite of all your legal experience you seem to have already supposed Landis guilty even though the preponderance of the evidence suggests that all of the LNDD testing is bad. For all test's. And the fact that they would not have thier machines set up properly when so much is at stake suggests that they are both reckless and could have malicious motives.
However, I believe he may be able to sue LNDD in the French courts maybe?
merlinextraligh,
In spite of all your legal experience you seem to have already supposed Landis guilty even though the preponderance of the evidence suggests that all of the LNDD testing is bad. For all test's. And the fact that they would not have thier machines set up properly when so much is at stake suggests that they are both reckless and could have malicious motives.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.