Guess which of the following Floyd Landis is explicitly forbidden to say about the UCI (cycling’s international federation), Pat McQuaid and Hein Verbruggen, according to a Swiss court ruling (pardon the profanity):
- They’ve taken bribes.
- They delayed publication of a positive test by Alberto Contador.
- They burned LiveStrong bracelets at a cocktail party.
- They concealed doping cases.
- They’re terrorists.
- They’re just like Gaddafi.
- They’re responsible for the international economy crashing.
- They’re bigger than Jesus.
- They load the dice.
- They stack the deck.
- They’re full of shit.
- They have no regard for the rules.
Correct answer: All but 3, 7, 8 and 10. See the ruling for yourself.
Now guess where Landis has to publish a retraction of claims against the UCI and others at his own expense — it doesn’t specify standard ad rate or advertorial deal.
- The Wall Street Journal
- USA TODAY
- The Onion
- Le Temps (Switzerland)
- Velo News
- Cycling News
- De Volksrant (Netherlands)
Correct answer: All but USA TODAY and The Onion.
We’d need a lawyer to tell us if, say, NYVelocity.com is compelled to take a Landis retraction. That’s not an idle question. NYVelocity is taking up a defense fund for journalist Paul Kimmage, who faces a similar suit in Swiss court.
“But the only cyclist I know is Lance Armstrong,” you say. “What does this mean to him?”
It means that you might want to be careful about accusing the UCI of covering up a positive test for Armstrong. So in a tangential sense, it’s a “win” for Armstrong, but a slight one.
Can any lawyers tell us what Switzerland plans to do if Landis decides paying back the “Floyd Fairness Fund” donations are a higher priority than paying for ads in all these publications?