EPO and Libel (and Lance)

Posted by: Deane F on 10 September 2005

As far as I know there are only two defences to a suit of libel:

1) We didn't print it.

or

2) What we printed was the truth.

So why isn't Lance Armstrong suing a certain French publication for what he claims are clearly libellous statements?

Posted on: 11 September 2005 by Steve G

Perhaps it's because:

a) He can't be bothered with the hassle/expense?
b) He's too busy shagging Sheryl Crow?

Posted on: 11 September 2005 by Roy T

c) It could be true?

Posted on: 11 September 2005 by Deane F

I wonder if I wouldn't need performance enhancement myself for option b) - after a few days that is...

Seriously though, given the possible effect on Lance Armstrong's future income from endorsements I would have thought that the expense of a libel suit was pretty minor.

Posted on: 11 September 2005 by and

Well he not shy about these things!

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/sep05/sep10newsflash