Parlez Vous Francais?

First topic message reminder :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qUxcmH595s&feature=player_embedded

Where there is smoke, there is fire....or is it just a smokescreen?
Or none of the above....


What is going on?

But this was a list that came from Fuentes himself. A list of people that he said that he 'helped'.

To sue someone for defamation, there has to be obvious damage caused. I.e. you can't sue someone for the holiday thing.

I don't see how being named on a list of people who a blood doping doctor said he blood doped is not damaging.

djlovesyou wrote:But this was a list that came from Fuentes himself. A list of people that he said that he 'helped'.

To sue someone for defamation, there has to be obvious damage caused. I.e. you can't sue someone for the holiday thing.

I don't see how being named on a list of people who a blood doping doctor said he blood doped is not damaging.

I thought Fuentes had consistently denied doping anyone? So anyone on that list is just on the list that a doctor provided, saying "These are people I treated legally". So any damage done is tenuous. It's entirely possible, probable even, the L'Equipe's laywers said "Hey, we can print the names, because we're not actually accusing anyone of anything. There's no legal defamation, so no-one can sue us".

Nah. He always denied any 'illegal action' in that he didn't do anything illegal in terms of the law.

He said he's as frustrated as anyone that the full list can't be released.

djlovesyou wrote:Nah. He always denied any 'illegal action' in that he didn't do anything illegal in terms of the law.

He said he's as frustrated as anyone that the full list can't be released.

So how could being on his list be considered grounds for defamation of character and hence a lawsuit? All I'm saying is that the legal side of things probably isn't as clear-cut as "Oh Rafa didn't sue, therefore he must be guilty" - but if the magazine didn't accuse him of anything other than being on a list of athletes that a doctor said did nothing illegal, then legally, what would be the nature of the lawsuit? What could he sue them for?

Because doping in sport is not always illegal in terms of the law. I know for a fact it's not illegal in the UK and it's not illegal in the USA. It's obviously not illegal in Spain, but it is in France, Italy and Germany.

So it's possible Nadal wanted to sue but his lawyers said "On what grounds?" and he said "To clear my name" and they said "Clear it from what, they didn't actually accuse you of anything. Legally there's nothing we can do".
Is that at least a possible scenario?

Yes that's right Julius.

They did. They accused him of being on a list of cheats.

Just because something isn't illegal in terms of judicial law, doesn't make it damaging for someone to accuse of it, does it?

Feels like I'm repeating myself a little here.

JuliusHMarx wrote:So it's possible Nadal wanted to sue but his lawyers said "On what grounds?" and he said "To clear my name" and they said "Clear it from what, they didn't actually accuse you of anything. Legally there's nothing we can do".
Is that at least a possible scenario?

"On what grounds?"

Being accused of evading duty on petrol perhaps?

DJ, it wasn't a list of cheats. It was a list of non-cheats, according to the person who provided it.
Did L'Equipe say they were all cheats? (Serious question)

But people think they're all cheats. (A lot of the cyclists were proven to have cheated at the hands of Fuentes.)

He didn't say they weren't cheats, his argument was that he didn't do anything wrong 'in the eyes of the law'. Not in the eyes of the sporting world.

Do you agree that being on that list (of people treated by the blood doping doctor) would be damaging to ones career/public image? If so, he has every grounds to sue the newspaper if they falsely accused him of being on it. What Fuentes actually did with his clients is completely irrelevant as it happens because the whole world believes he helped people to cheat at sport.

I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me it would be very hard to sue a newspaper who simply said you were on a list, unless the newspaper itself also made negative comments about the list.
I'm fairly sure L'Equipe's lawyers would approve the wording for that very reason.
Unless we know the wording of the article it's hard for us to say.
Like I said before, I don't think this particular side of things is as clear-cut as some people say.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me it would be very hard to sue a newspaper who simply said you were on a list, unless the newspaper itself also made negative comments about the list.
I'm fairly sure L'Equipe's lawyers would approve the wording for that very reason.
Unless we know the wording of the article it's hard for us to say.
Like I said before, I don't think this particular side of things is as clear-cut as some people say.

Yes, and that's the most annoying of all. Limbo.

No. That's not right either.

If a newspaper accused someone of being on the sex offender register. Would they have to clarify that being on the sex offender register is a negative thing for this to be defamation? (if not true)

djlovesyou wrote:No. That's not right either.

If a newspaper accused someone of being on the sex offender register. Would they have to clarify that being on the sex offender register is a negative thing for this to be defamation? (if not true)

The sex offender register is a list of known criminals, so by definition is a negative thing. It's simply not comparable. For Fuentes list, unless the newspaper actually said something negative about the list itself, their defence would be that they cannot be responsible for public opinion, nor did they try to reflect or influence public opinion. But without the actual wording of the article, which any lawyer would go through with a fine-tooth comb, it's hard to say exactly.
But to simply say "Rafa didn't sue when he could have" seems wrong without a) detailed knowledge of the article and b) detailed knowledge of international litigation law.

The lie would be enough. I don't understand how you don't think how saying someone like Nadal is involved in an investigation like this isn't in any way damaging, unless they clarify it explicitly.

Lying about something with such negative connatations is plenty enough to litigate. And it's a straightforward, easily investigated lie.

Is he on the list? Nope. Ok, Nadal wins, thanks for playing.

I can't see how this is complicated in any sense.

djlovesyou wrote:The lie would be enough. I don't understand how you don't think how saying someone like Nadal is involved in an investigation like this isn't in any way damaging, unless they clarify it explicitly.

Lying about something with such negative connatations is plenty enough to litigate. And it's a straightforward, easily investigated lie.

Is he on the list? Nope. Ok, Nadal wins, thanks for playing.

I can't see how this is complicated in any sense.

Without knowing the law, how can you be certain it isn't very complicated?
Anyway agree to disagree?

Fair enough, although I do believe you may be deliberately ignoring most of what I'm saying.

So wash his name on the list or not? I mean, can at least THAT be established or is all this a pie in the sky?

djlovesyou wrote:Fair enough, although I do believe you may be deliberately ignoring most of what I'm saying.

I was thinking the same about you A classic 606v2 stand-off

Nope, it can't.

If it we knew that, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Le Journal de Dimanche said he was, along with 5 members of Real Madrid.

Haha, julius.

At least we didn't start calling each other names.

Le Journal de Dimanche said he was, along with 5 members of Real Madrid.

I believe there are tonnes of footballers on banned substances.

djlovesyou wrote:Haha, julius.

At least we didn't start calling each other names.

Manners maketh men!

djlovesyou wrote:Nope, it can't.

If it we knew that, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Le Journal de Dimanche said he was, along with 5 members of Real Madrid.

Hey, let's all club together for a lawyer so we can finally find out

What would our angle be? Sue them because saying bad things about Nadal makes us all cry?

djlovesyou wrote:What would our angle be? Sue them because saying bad things about Nadal makes us all cry?

not sure....but it could be fun!