Lance Armstrong - Readers want their money back

[Kumabjorn]

Originally Posted by SeaKing

I want to sue the Kardasians just for polluting my eyeballs with all their rubbish.

Can we make that a class action suit?

[Jozawun]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

What Jozawun said is basically right; there may be a cause of action against Armstrong under the California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Basically, if you make certain kinds of false statements in order to sell goods, and people buy the goods in reliance on the false statement, you've violated the act and can be sued.

The hardest thing about these kind of suits is proving reliance, and I see that as being a big problem in this case. I'm not sure how the plaintiffs will prove that they bought the book because they believed that it was all true, as opposed to having simply bought the book because it was written by Armstrong and they were interested in what he had to say.

Reliance is a problem for the class, too, such that it might be hard to establish a class action.

(There's also a statute of limitations issue, but it might be tolled).

I see California is code, we're common law here in Victoria.
As with you, the key problem is proving reliance.
There would also be a S/L problem with any civil action, but it could be avoided by a claim that the facts have only just become known.
Interestingly there is no S/L on perjury here, because it's a major crime (you can cop up to 15 years). Not that he committed perjury here. He may have told some punishable fibs to Customs, which would come back to bite him on the bum if he ever again lands in Oz.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Jozawun

Interestingly there is no S/L on perjury here, because it's a major crime (you can cop up to 15 years). Not that he committed perjury here. He may have told some punishable fibs to Customs, which would come back to bite him on the bum if he ever again lands in Oz.

He did, however, commit perjury in the UK when he sued a number of British newspapers for libel for their claims that he took drugs. There is also no statute of limitations for perjury here.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Non-fiction and true aren't the same thing. There are books claiming the moon landing was faked. That's nonsense, but it doesn't give anyone a case for a lawsuit.

How is it nonsense? If you believe that they had the technology to land a man on the moon then it should not be that difficult to believe that they had the technology to fake it. Unless you been there on the moon personally, you will never know if it is possible to get there and back alive.

[Yolina]

There's an article from the BBC here

In both books, Armstrong is emphatic that the drug charges against him are false.
"Our team had 'zero tolerance' for any form of doping," runs one passage in Every Second Counts. "It sounded like the usual cliched statement, but we meant it. We were absolutely innocent."

Not that I read biographies, but it wouldn't cross my mind to sue for a refund if I had bought one that doesn't tell the truth

All Armstrong needs to do is put another book out "How We Fooled Everyone" and then maybe give a free copy to those readers who aren't happy about having bought the others

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by frahse

Fools!

Don't they understand how "reality shows" work.

"Le Tour de France."

Lies, damned lies, and more damned lies!

Starring Lance Armstrong with Sheryl Crow, and a lot of growth enhanced athletes and their sponsors.

When bicycles went beyond the single speed with coaster brake, to the 3 speed English bike with hand brakes, and then to the derailleur system, corruption was bound to set in.

Get a horse, or just use your feet.

Excellent summation

[xg4bx]

Caveat Emptor


Just another abuse of the legal system, nothing more.

[pl001]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

How is it nonsense? If you believe that they had the technology to land a man on the moon then it should not be that difficult to believe that they had the technology to fake it. Unless you been there on the moon personally, you will never know if it is possible to get there and back alive.

Good point. I've never been to France either, so I guess I really don't know for sure if it is possible to fly there across the Atlantic.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Jozawun

There would also be a S/L problem with any civil action, but it could be avoided by a claim that the facts have only just become known.
Interestingly there is no S/L on perjury here, because it's a major crime (you can cop up to 15 years). Not that he committed perjury here. He may have told some punishable fibs to Customs, which would come back to bite him on the bum if he ever again lands in Oz.

It's a 3 year SOL under the California statute, but it begins to run when a reasonable person would have discovered the injury, so they're probably good on that.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by HarryT

He did, however, commit perjury in the UK when he sued a number of British newspapers for libel for their claims that he took drugs. There is also no statute of limitations for perjury here.

He only sued the Sunday Times, and he didn't commit perjury in the UK. They settled before they got to court.

The Times is planning to sue him, to get its money back.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

he didn't commit perjury in the UK. They settled before they got to court.

He could have committed perjury in the filing of the suit. Not sure of the specifics here, especially in the UK, but many court documents are signed under penalty of perjury, regardless of if they ever see the inside of a courtroom.

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

How is it nonsense? If you believe that they had the technology to land a man on the moon then it should not be that difficult to believe that they had the technology to fake it. Unless you been there on the moon personally, you will never know if it is possible to get there and back alive.

Now that's a really serious argument but as I've never seen you, I can't believe in you so this argument is fiction as you must be...

[afv011]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

How is it nonsense? If you believe that they had the technology to land a man on the moon then it should not be that difficult to believe that they had the technology to fake it. Unless you been there on the moon personally, you will never know if it is possible to get there and back alive.

It looks like we had the technology to put a man on the moon, but not to fake it.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by pl001

Good point. I've never been to France either, so I guess I really don't know for sure if it is possible to fly there across the Atlantic.

Now that is nonsense, and just the reply I expected. I was initially talking about the Van Allen radiation belt. You can believe what you want, either it was lethal or not with equipment used over 50 years ago. You can even doubt it is lethal at all. To get to the moon, sooner or later you have to fly through it. You are very gullable to believe so strongly that there was no way the first moon landing was faked. I am not convinced either way, and for man kind it really doesn't make any difference if there was men on the moon or not.

Both theories are plausible scientifically: faked or not faked.

[DiapDealer]

I... um...
"Cheque please!"