Bizarre interview with FL

Originally Posted by C'dale Girl

Yes, both professions can be sued for malpractice. Which is why my original question to the poster was "on what grounds would FL sue his attorneys" (i.e. what did they do wrong?)

The answer I got was that they lost. Apparently, that is what they did wrong.

Do you see any malpractice by FL's attorneys in his case?

Originally Posted by limerickman

The US in particular is a highly litigious country.
No disrespect to our legal friends but when you have a society whose structures were created by lawyers, litigation is bound to prosper.

Originally Posted by limerickman

Well the labs used to test samples are staffed by eminently qualified people.
All of the labs that do conduct tests have to have reliable methodology...if they don't have reliable methodologies and, as a result, issue results which are clinically incorrect, those labs would lose their funding and the reputation of the staff would be seriously imperilled and makes their chances of gaining future employment very difficult.

No credible lab and/or scientist would deliberately corrupt a sample to achieve a given result - it's more than their reputation is worth.

Originally Posted by fscyclist

Lim, I think it is no coincidence that of all the confirmed dopers in recent memory the only two riders to attack the process with a complete legal onslaught were Americans, Hamilton and Landis. Others threatened (if I remember) but never followed through. I think this is for two primary reasons.

Originally Posted by fscyclist

2. Our law schools produce more lawyers than we need which causes much of this mess.

Originally Posted by limerickman

Well it's worth re-rading some of the comments that were posted immediately after Landis got busted and when both samples tested positives.

Originally Posted by Bro Deal

Too bad the search function has been disabled. It would be fun to revisit the comments. The comments after Hamilton tested positive would probably be even funnier.

Originally Posted by limerickman

If you really do wish to put yourself through the torture of re-reading some out(f)landish excuses see these

http://www.cyclingforums.com/t-354418-15-1.html

http://www.cyclingforums.com/t356046.html

http://www.cyclingforums.com/t355965.html


http://www.cyclingforums.com/t355988.html

http://www.cyclingforums.com/t356223.html
this one is hilarious.

http://www.cyclingforums.com/t356065.html
more excuses.

http://www.cyclingforums.com/t356297.html
and more

Originally Posted by fscyclist

Lim, I think it is no coincidence that of all the confirmed dopers in recent memory the only two riders to attack the process with a complete legal onslaught were Americans, Hamilton and Landis. Others threatened (if I remember) but never followed through. I think this is for two primary reasons.

1. The current culture in America promotes this behavior. The saying 'sue 'em' is commonplace and almost slang in many parts. This behavior is promoted because it is possible for plaintiffs to win money, sometimes large sums, for BS. Most of these cases are settled out of court because the defendant realizes it will cost as much or more to fight the case (with an expensive lawyer) than to just 'pay off' the plaintiff. And if you win as the defendant, you gain nothing in the end and usually lose thousands to the lawyer. Additionally, most cases are taken by lawyers for no fee unless the plaintiff wins. Thus the plaintiff has no personal liability for bringing forth a case with little merit. I know Landis and Hamilton had to pay lawyer fees, but to avoid this, they set up 'foundations' which essentially provided them the same scenario. While in Europe I never found this behavior, and when talking with Europeans, I again find this culture foreign to them, which is good for you across the pond.

2. America is plagued...I mean full of aggressive lawyers. They have to make a living like everyone else and civil litigation can pay the bills and even be very profitable. There are many lawyers and firms across the country willing to take on such cases. Our law schools produce more lawyers than we need which causes much of this mess.

Originally Posted by fscyclist

Lim, I think it is no coincidence that of all the confirmed dopers in recent memory the only two riders to attack the process with a complete legal onslaught were Americans, Hamilton and Landis. Others threatened (if I remember) but never followed through. I think this is for two primary reasons.

1. The current culture in America promotes this behavior. The saying 'sue 'em' is commonplace and almost slang in many parts. This behavior is promoted because it is possible for plaintiffs to win money, sometimes large sums, for BS. Most of these cases are settled out of court because the defendant realizes it will cost as much or more to fight the case (with an expensive lawyer) than to just 'pay off' the plaintiff. And if you win as the defendant, you gain nothing in the end and usually lose thousands to the lawyer. Additionally, most cases are taken by lawyers for no fee unless the plaintiff wins. Thus the plaintiff has no personal liability for bringing forth a case with little merit. I know Landis and Hamilton had to pay lawyer fees, but to avoid this, they set up 'foundations' which essentially provided them the same scenario. While in Europe I never found this behavior, and when talking with Europeans, I again find this culture foreign to them, which is good for you across the pond.

2. America is plagued...I mean full of aggressive lawyers. They have to make a living like everyone else and civil litigation can pay the bills and even be very profitable. There are many lawyers and firms across the country willing to take on such cases. Our law schools produce more lawyers than we need which causes much of this mess.

Originally Posted by fscyclist

... it is no coincidence that of all the confirmed dopers in recent memory the only two riders to attack the process with a complete legal onslaught were Americans....

Originally Posted by fscyclist

Lim, I think it is no coincidence that of all the confirmed dopers in recent memory the only two riders to attack the process with a complete legal onslaught were Americans, Hamilton and Landis. Others threatened (if I remember) but never followed through. I think this is for two primary reasons.

1. The current culture in America promotes this behavior. The saying 'sue 'em' is commonplace and almost slang in many parts. This behavior is promoted because it is possible for plaintiffs to win money, sometimes large sums, for BS. Most of these cases are settled out of court because the defendant realizes it will cost as much or more to fight the case (with an expensive lawyer) than to just 'pay off' the plaintiff. And if you win as the defendant, you gain nothing in the end and usually lose thousands to the lawyer. Additionally, most cases are taken by lawyers for no fee unless the plaintiff wins. Thus the plaintiff has no personal liability for bringing forth a case with little merit. I know Landis and Hamilton had to pay lawyer fees, but to avoid this, they set up 'foundations' which essentially provided them the same scenario. While in Europe I never found this behavior, and when talking with Europeans, I again find this culture foreign to them, which is good for you across the pond.

2. America is plagued...I mean full of aggressive lawyers. They have to make a living like everyone else and civil litigation can pay the bills and even be very profitable. There are many lawyers and firms across the country willing to take on such cases. Our law schools produce more lawyers than we need which causes much of this mess.

Originally Posted by limerickman

Agreed : given the circumstances that you have outlined, it is no wonder that
the USA is very litigious.
Of course, it's the prerogative of a society to decide whether or not to allow the circumstances for those levels of litigation.