Professional Dopers - Forum Archive

Jul 23, 2013 at 05:35 PM

Holy shit, there's a claim that Sky drink the ketone coolaid (from bikesnob).

@bikesnobnyc Sky is using a ketone treatment that is under drug trials in England. It extends the duration of maximal efforts.
— Bill Kennedy, Yo! (@BillKennedyYo)July 22, 2013

They offered no evidence to back that up, but then someone else came in with this:

@bikesnobnyc "Dr Scott Drawer, head of research at UK Sport, who helped design the trial..." http://t.co/BqjoZLznYi
— Alex Donald (@_awdo)July 22, 2013

ian ellis

Jul 23, 2013 at 06:00 PM

.. and this exemplifies some of the issues with social media.

Those tweeting are in the US, which unfortunately for Sky means they fall under US libel (defamation) law and not English law.
The key difference being that under English law the burden of proof is with the defendant (bikesnob in this case). He would have to prove that the Sky actually were using the treatment. If he cannot then he would be found guilty. However Sky would only be able to collect damages from him if the court felt that his statement was made deliberately in order to make the public have a negative view of team Sky. Sky would probably have a good case in that regard too.

US law works in reverse: Sky would need to prove that they have not used keytone treatment before there would be a case.

Jules

Jul 23, 2013 at 06:05 PM

ian ellis said:

.. and this exemplifies some of the issues with social media.

Those tweeting are in the US, which unfortunately for Sky means they fall under US libel (defamation) law and not English law.
The key difference being that under English law the burden of proof is with the defendant (bikesnob in this case). He would have to prove that the Sky actually were using the treatment. If he cannot then he would be found guilty. However Sky would only be able to collect damages from him if the court felt that his statement was made deliberately in order to make the public have a negative view of team Sky. Sky would probably have a good case in that regard too.

US law works in reverse: Sky would need to prove that they have not used keytone treatment before there would be a case.

"...when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

File it under yet another reason...

Jules

Jul 23, 2013 at 06:07 PM

"A group of top international rowers were given it shortly before they rowed on fixed machines in a lab.

After half an hour of hard rowing, those getting the Drink had rowed on average 50m further in the same time than when they had a dummy drink. This was an improvement of 0.5 per cent. It can be the difference between silver and gold.

Dr Scott Drawer, head of research at UK Sport, who helped design the trial, said: ‘Ketones have been ignored as an energy source in sport. We need to look at them seriously.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2238842/Could-elixir-hold-key-weight-loss-Experts-hope-itll-treat-diabetes-epilepsy-Alzheimers.html

Alex Vaughan

Jul 23, 2013 at 06:14 PM

Wait, is ketone doping actually prohibited? I don't see it on the list

Although "Any pharmacological substance which is not addressed by any of the subsequent sections of the List and with no current approval by any governmental regulatory health authority for human therapeutic use (e.g drugs under pre-clinical or clinical development or discontinued, designer drugs, substances approved only for veterinary use) is prohibited.", so I guess that's less good.

But I'm pretty sure you could use the natural derivative, if not the synthesized version.

dstearns

Jul 23, 2013 at 06:19 PM

given that it's one of the biggest media companies in the world, sky likely would be treated as a well-known public entity. that means that even if they can prove they DIDN'T use ketone, in order to win their suit they'd still have to prove actual malice - that snob published it KNOWING it to be false, or had a reckless disregard for the truth in publishing it. and that is not easy to prove, at all.

they'd also have to show that their reputation was actually injured by the alleged libel - given the thousands of comments floating around right now about froome and porte riding dirty, i'd think this would be a tough hill for them to slog up as well (of course, with sky's history in the hills.....).

ian ellis

Jul 23, 2013 at 08:46 PM

You are correct as a public entity they would need to prove malice in order to claim damages. They could still win the case, with the accused being found guilty and charged accordingly, but without damages.

Anyway .. the point is .. all we have is two tweets stating that Sky have used this treatment, Without supporting evidence.

(And even if they did use it, no one is actually certain it is illegal.)

Jeff Owens

Jul 23, 2013 at 10:03 PM

BSNYC just re-tweeted that.

Anyway. I hate most social media crap but twitter does provide a valuable source for info if used that way. Greenwald, Pilkington, Taibbi, Ryan Johnston, etc.

That said, you should all follow me bc I'm awesome. I retweet you like a bad man.

@chocolaterat

twoyacks

Jul 23, 2013 at 10:53 PM

HELLO KIDDIES !!!!!!!!

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/15077/Jalabert-Pantani-Ullrich-and-Zabel-alleged-to-be-on-French-senates-doping-report.aspx

doubtfire.jpg

twoyacks

Jul 23, 2013 at 10:57 PM

crap....Jacky Durand too....I loved that guy !

twoyacks

Jul 24, 2013 at 12:20 AM

In other professional doping news......

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-23/lance-armstrong-asks-judge-to-dismiss-u-s-false-claims-suit.html?cmpid=yhoo

and I'm checking his new stache for growth hormone!

snidely-whiplash_6902.jpg

twoyacks

Jul 24, 2013 at 04:38 PM

Go get your popcorn...

http://movies.yahoo.com/news/sony-pictures-classics-release-alex-gibney-lance-armstrong-153038347.html

twoyacks

Jul 24, 2013 at 04:54 PM

retiring a year early ???

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ogrady-admits-epo-use-ahead-of-1998-tour-de-france

Stewie...take your big wheel and go home !

Stewie_Griffin.png

Brendan Rigby

Jul 24, 2013 at 07:55 PM

ian ellis said:

You are correct as a public entity they would need to prove malice in order to claim damages. They could still win the case, with the accused being found guilty and charged accordingly, but without damages.

Anyway .. the point is .. all we have is two tweets stating that Sky have used this treatment, Without supporting evidence.

(And even if they did use it, no one is actually certain it is illegal.)

HAHAHA i can't believe i took a moment off of studying the bar to read the forums and you guys are going through the elements of defamation. oh god.

for my own edification, because typing it out will help me review, and also for yours too (please don't tell me if i'm wrong as i'd rather be blissfully ignorant):

there would be no "guilt" as this would be a civil liability case.

the plaintiff, sky, would need to prove (1) defamatory language by the defendant (2) of or concerning the plaintiff (3) that was published to third parties and (4) damaged the plaintiff's reputation. all those are unlikely for the reasons you've artfully penned above.

because the case involves a matter of public concern (generally, things that are 'newsworthy,' such as whether a professional cycling team is using banned substances), the Constitution imposes an additional burden on the plaintiff. the plaintiff would also have to show (5) that the statement was false and that (6) it was made with culpability.

the level of culpability required of the defendant turns on whether the plaintiff is a public or private figure, rather than the subject matter of the defamation. sky is a media organization; hard to think of a more public figure. it would therefore have to produce clear and convincing evidence that the statement was made with actual malice or reckless disregard for its truth in order to recover money damages for the harm to its reputation. actual malice requires more than mere ill will or spite. previous findings of actual malice have included material alterations of quotations attributed to the plaintiff. the errant tweet does not satisfy this burden, and is not defamatory speech in NY.

additionally, consent is a defense to intentional torts including defamation. this might apply as part of an exchange between the plaintiff or defendant (which doesn't seem to be the case here). for example, if Sky had tweeted "why don't you like our cycling team?", its solicitation of feedback would operate as consent to responses and obviate recovery.

Jules

Jul 24, 2013 at 08:07 PM

Start a "legal" thread if you guys really want. This is the thread on Professional Dopers.

Alex Vaughan

Jul 24, 2013 at 08:10 PM

Jesus, and I thought my post was nerdy.

ian ellis

Jul 24, 2013 at 08:59 PM

Apologies to all for taking this on a legal bent it was not my intention and of course I feel suitably chastised by Jules for doing so.

Brendan thanks for educating me I bow to your superior knowledge of the English legal system.

Now can we all return to agreeing how any professional cyclist riding now and at any time in the past is an evil doper who should be hounded out of the sport.

dstearns

Jul 24, 2013 at 09:01 PM

Doping without lawyers is like cookies without milk. It's in the rules.

dstearns

Jul 24, 2013 at 09:03 PM

PS my father-in-law is a Florida state appellate judge (retired) - one of the good ones. he vetted my earlier note by saying "don't waste my time with this bullshit."

Jules

Jul 24, 2013 at 09:04 PM

ian ellis said:

Apologies to all for taking this on a legal bent it was not my intention and of course I feel suitably chastised by Jules for doing so.

Brendan thanks for educating me I bow to your superior knowledge of the English legal system.

Now can we all return to agreeing how any professional cyclist riding now and at any time in the past is an evil doper who should be hounded out of the sport.

Except Jens! He's clean as the driven snow... I pray.

Adam

Jul 24, 2013 at 09:20 PM

@Ian

I think, maybe, perhaps, you made a funny in there. Yep, definitely looks like a joint smackdown/banter statement. I giggled at it BTW. Good form.

Jeffrey White

Jul 25, 2013 at 03:05 AM

I thought Adam and Ian genuinely despised each other. I have much to learn.

Jeffrey White

Jul 27, 2013 at 01:21 AM

I agree with Lance Armstrong in this article.

Jules

Jul 27, 2013 at 06:46 PM

Ben Foster to play Armstrong in the movie..?

http://m.imdb.com/name/nm0004936/

twoyacks

Jul 27, 2013 at 08:44 PM

He was AWESOME in Alpha Dog....he can play a psychopath....but can he play a sociopath?

ian ellis

Jul 28, 2013 at 03:46 AM

The difference is behavior is not that significant. The real difference is that one is considered 'nature' and the other 'nurture'. I'm pretty sure he can do a decent job.

Marc Bertucco

Jul 28, 2013 at 03:59 AM

The following interview with former pro Kirk Willett to me is interesting on several points.

1) He reports first hearing about doping products while on the NATIONAL TEAM in the mid 1990s.

2) He agrees with a point that has frustrated me, namely, the penalties are basically non-existent. Doped riders do their time, and get their rides back as soon as they come back (unless you are apparently a massive prick and old *ahem-cough-Levi-cough*)

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/willett-there-was-an-anti-doping-community-in-the-usa-the-nineties

Jules

Jul 28, 2013 at 09:25 PM

The Human Liar Instinct is remarkable in its consistency; "honey it was just one time..."

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/15107/Zabel-admits-to-lying-in-2007-about-extent-of-his-doping-now-confirms-eight-season-period-of-use.aspx

dstokes

Jul 31, 2013 at 09:41 PM

OK, I think McQuaid is seriously delusional, along the lines of Anthony Weiner:

"I'm the beginning of the new guard because I'm the one who has completely changed the culture of doping in our sport since I came in eight years ago,"

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-touts-anti-doping-initiatives-in-re-election-bid

normanzo

Jul 31, 2013 at 10:11 PM

Ketones, phooey... Froome's true power secret was uncovered in this spy photo taken at the foot of Ax 3 Domaines.

froome_engine.jpg