Page 1 of 1

Landis vs WDA

Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 10:07 pm
by rustychain
WDA has said its going after Landis for $$$$
http://www.comcast.net/articles/sports- ... LANDIS-DC/

Looks a bit mean spirited to me. Why say this before the final judgments? Are they trying to send a message?

Landis vs WDA

Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 10:07 pm
by Weenie

Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 11:02 pm
by TheBugMan
Would be nice if everyone who sued; complained, dragged another person’s life through hell should pay back cost (in full) when they lose.

Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 3:28 am
by Mr.Gib
TheBugMan wrote:Would be nice if everyone who sued; complained, dragged another person’s life through hell should pay back cost (in full) when they lose.


In Canada when you win a lawsuit you can recover anywhere from 60 to 90 percent of legal costs depending on a variety of factors.

Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 3:46 am
by CharlesM
You can in the US too...

But when it's a governing body simply doing it's job?

Not sure that in this case where someone simply defends themselves to the best pf their abilities that there should be a law that could possibly influence people not to defend themselves...

When it's an organization like WADA i'm just not sure how I feel about them both attacking and then penalizing athletes...

Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 6:09 am
by Hubert
What a bunch of bullshit.

Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 11:42 am
by rustychain
I am NOT defending Landis but WDA could be trying to intimidate a legal defence. Keep in mind that WDA overseas lots of sports besides cycling, some make much less money. Could this lead to atheletes being unable in a practicle sence to defend themselves? Even in a murder case I have never heard of being forced to pay for the prosecution, perhaps in some cases you pay a nominal court costs. It also puts WDA in a bad light in that they appear to be vindictive. It feeds that notion rightly or not that they are out to get Landis.
While I think they have proved the case that Ladis was on dope I think they will have a higher burden of proof to go forward with this case. They will have to prove that he took the dope (was not doped by someone else, and yes its happened before in this sport) and they must prove intention. To go after this case WDA will need to spend lots more money that could be used for more effective IMO ways of stopping dopers.
Please don't dump on me regarding Landis's guilt, I have no clue if or what he is guilty of besides the findings of the WDA and the court of arbitration. I am only commenting on the legal proceedings that WDA is considering

Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 9:29 pm
by DocRay
TheBugMan wrote:Would be nice if everyone who sued; complained, dragged another person’s life through hell should pay back cost (in full) when they lose.


In most countries outside the US, this is the case. Loser pays. This results in far fewer frivolous lawsuits and ambulance chasers. US society pays a huge lawyer tax over its lawsuits. Drives up the cost of everything, for everyone.

Landis made several libelous claims against the WDA, he had his days in court and lost, he is, by every definition, guilty. Sorry fanboys.

BTW: he would also be facing a class action suit over his legal defense fund, but no one is going after him when there is no money to be had.

Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 1:47 pm
by Auk
DocRay wrote:
TheBugMan wrote:Would be nice if everyone who sued; complained, dragged another person’s life through hell should pay back cost (in full) when they lose.


In most countries outside the US, this is the case. Loser pays. This results in far fewer frivolous lawsuits and ambulance chasers. US society pays a huge lawyer tax over its lawsuits. Drives up the cost of everything, for everyone.


And if the lawsuit is not frivolous, do you expect the same loser pays standard?

The fact of the matter is that the only people that are and have been hammering for the "loser pays" standard are the very companies that are responsible for many of the suits being brought. The medical and industrial steamroller stand to be the biggest benifactor in such cases. Tort reform is not a product of individuals being unjustly brought to stand for their actions, it's the companies that are negligent. The medical profession got around this by have caps put in place that limit the amount of recovery.

If WADA is forced to spend money, great. Everybody wins, as they will then decide to get their sh*t together and do thinigs the right way. Being the 800 pound gorilla is not the direction that they should be going.

Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 2:54 am
by Sprinter
Interesting comment by Victor Conte in a letter to former client Dwain Chambers - basically saying WADA is turning a blind eye to cheats (see last five paragraphs).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/olympic ... 403158.stm

Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 4:01 am
by Option
Auk wrote:
DocRay wrote:
TheBugMan wrote:Would be nice if everyone who sued; complained, dragged another person’s life through hell should pay back cost (in full) when they lose.


In most countries outside the US, this is the case. Loser pays. This results in far fewer frivolous lawsuits and ambulance chasers. US society pays a huge lawyer tax over its lawsuits. Drives up the cost of everything, for everyone.


And if the lawsuit is not frivolous, do you expect the same loser pays standard?

The fact of the matter is that the only people that are and have been hammering for the "loser pays" standard are the very companies that are responsible for many of the suits being brought. The medical and industrial steamroller stand to be the biggest benifactor in such cases. Tort reform is not a product of individuals being unjustly brought to stand for their actions, it's the companies that are negligent. The medical profession got around this by have caps put in place that limit the amount of recovery.

If WADA is forced to spend money, great. Everybody wins, as they will then decide to get their sh*t together and do thinigs the right way. Being the 800 pound gorilla is not the direction that they should be going.


In most countries it simply goes without saying - "costs follow the event" ie, you lose the case, you pay the winner's legal costs. It's not about punishment, it's about compensating the innocent party for the hassle of having to go to court when they shouldn't have had to. It can work against the big guys too - they can't squash someone in court without merit and expect to get away with it.

In common law countries there's judicial discretion, but that discretion is rarely exercised unless there's some general public interest ground involved, and the winner has behaved really shabbily.

Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 2:48 am
by swinter
PezTech wrote:You can in the US too...

Mostly not. Some statutes provide for fee shifting (mostly the civil rights statutes) and, if its a big class recovery, the lawyers get their fee out of the recovery. But, in the US, mostly each party pays its own lawyers' fees.

Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 2:48 am
by Weenie