Why is Rafa only threatening to sue over doping accusations now?

[mrzz]

Thanks for the video, Moxie.

I can catch a few things in French, and with the help of your translation I guess I can understand most of what she said.

Well....

I am sorry but it fits exactly my point.. She really wants to point out Nadal, but she is smart enough to fall back to "a lot of the time" instead of "every time", so I guess she is safe on a law suit (judging solely from this and from another interview I just found, that seems legit). And she has a thesis, as you put above, that long injury time breaks are due to positive drug tests. Sorry, but the general idea here is not complete lunacy (I am not saying that this is true in the particular Nadal case).

So, as I wanted to point out since the beginning, she's not some random stupid politician saying stupid things to get attention and/or because she can't control her mouth. She actually has a point and nows quite well what she's doing. She could be wrong, of course, but to simply dismiss what she said (on the poor arguments given above), considering that we are here to debate, and thus better understand the topics being discussed, was quite silly to begin with.

As for why she's calling Nadal in particular, there could a lot of reasons behind it. She could be just envy, she may have a secret crush on him, she may have actual inside information, she could be a Federer fan, she could know quite a lot about doping and just be sure, etc and etc and etc...

 

[Federberg]

Thanks for the video, Moxie.

I can catch a few things in French, and with the help of your translation I guess I can understand most of what she said.

Well....

I am sorry but it fits exactly my point.. She really wants to point out Nadal, but she is smart enough to fall back to "a lot of the time" instead of "every time", so I guess she is safe on a law suit (judging solely from this and from another interview I just found, that seems legit). And she has a thesis, as you put above, that long injury time breaks are due to positive drug tests. Sorry, but the general idea here is not complete lunacy (I am not saying that this is true in the particular Nadal case).

So, as I wanted to point out since the beginning, she's not some random stupid politician saying stupid things to get attention and/or because she can't control her mouth. She actually has a point and nows quite well what she's doing. She could be wrong, of course, but to simply dismiss what she said (on the poor arguments given above), considering that we are here to debate, and thus better understand the topics being discussed, was quite silly to begin with.

As for why she's calling Nadal in particular, there could a lot of reasons behind it. She could be just envy, she may have a secret crush on him, she may have actual inside information, she could be a Federer fan, she could know quite a lot about doping and just be sure, etc and etc and etc...

The moment she specifically mentions Nadal, she is making a specific allegation. There is a case she has to answer. It's slander if she's wrong

 

[mrzz]

The moment she specifically mentions Nadal, she is making a specific allegation. There is a case she has to answer. It's slander if she's wrong

Not necessarily. Unless she categorically says he is doping, she is not making a specific allegation. It is close to slander, I agree, but there is a fine line there. I, particularly, think that people have the right to speculate. She has a thesis (long injury breaks in general are due to silent bans), and could (notice the tense of the verb) use Nadal to illustrate a possible, even likely (to her) example. As long as it is speculation, as long as she says "most likely" or something similar, it is not slander.

It is not "nice", surely, but the world is not nice.

 

[Federberg]

^Not making much sense to me mate. She specifically mentioned Nadal, with respect to long injury breaks being silent bans for doping. It sounds fairly clear to me. She made no mention of anyone else. There is a case to answer. Whether Rafa wins the case or not is not the point. There is a case to answer

 

[Carol]

^Not making much sense to me mate. She specifically mentioned Nadal, with respect to long injury breaks being silent bans for doping. It sounds fairly clear to me. She made no mention of anyone else. There is a case to answer. Whether Rafa wins the case or not is not the point. There is a case to answer

Of course there is a case to answer and the answer is that she is sued by Rafa, the best answer!

 

[brokenshoelace]

Not necessarily. Unless she categorically says he is doping, she is not making a specific allegation. It is close to slander, I agree, but there is a fine line there. I, particularly, think that people have the right to speculate. She has a thesis (long injury breaks in general are due to silent bans), and could (notice the tense of the verb) use Nadal to illustrate a possible, even likely (to her) example. As long as it is speculation, as long as she says "most likely" or something similar, it is not slander.

It is not "nice", surely, but the world is not nice.

Sorry, but you're grasping at straws here. What she said is absolutely ground for slander. I don't say this as a Nadal fan, I say this as a lawyer. The implications are clear and nobody's dumb.

It seems like your understanding of slander is something like: "Nadal is doping."

If you say injury layoffs are silent bans. And give a specific injury layoff to highlight your point, you're saying that injury layoff was in fact a silent ban due to a failed drug test. It's really easy to put 2 and 2 together although in this case you don't need to since she did that for you.

 

[mrzz]

Sorry, but you're grasping at straws here. What she said is absolutely ground for slander. I don't say this as a Nadal fan, I say this as a lawyer. The implications are clear and nobody's dumb.

It seems like your understanding of slander is something like: "Nadal is doping."

If you say injury layoffs are silent bans. And give a specific injury layoff to highlight your point, you're saying that injury layoff was in fact a silent ban due to a failed drug test. It's really easy to put 2 and 2 together although in this case you don't need to she did that for you.

Sorry, Broken, but you are missing a few things. First and foremost, I am not saying that the injury layoff was a silent ban. I have not enough knowledge to be certain about this. This is her point. What I am trying to say is:

a) It is easy, and dumb, to simply discredit what she says by discrediting her. Basic ad hominem argument.

b) I do not care, and neither think it is relevant here, if what she said is or is not ground for a law suit. If this was a law forum, ok, but I guess we are interested in the sport related implications of this (whatever this implications are. I know most people are sure that I personally believe in the silent ban. All I can say is that I am honestly in doubt.)

c) As I am not a lawyer, my understanding of slander is lexical, not juridical. But I am sure you will agree with me that there is a dilemma between slander and freedom of speech. In her case, fine, she obviously has a target (and she was explicit, after all). But, to me at least, she must be able to defend the point of view that most long injury layoffs are silent bans. She is allegedly saying that for the sake of a clean sport (or maybe out of Nadal hatred. Again, I don't know). Given all that, for practical reasons, my understanding of slander becomes pretty close of what you put above.

It is over-simplistic to put everything down to Mrs Bachelot (aka "that woman") lack of credibility. As a result of that, after five pages, almost anyone addressed the OP, and the question in debate. Of course I understand the concern for Nadal reputation, but people out there already talk the talk. Haters will slander him one way or another, regardless of what we discuss here (and I want to believe that very few here qualify as haters).

 

[Moxie]

The reason I quoted her in French and put up that video was so that there could be no mistake about what she said. She said that long injury lay-offs are due to positive drug screens and silent bans, then cited the example of Rafael Nadal and said that it was "trés certainment a cause d'une controle positif." (Excuse my spelling, but that means: "very certainly due to a positive drug screen.") And she said this directly about Nadal. Then she said that the long lay-offs are always due to a failed drug test. When the woman next to her asked, Always? She said, not always, but most of the time. She didn't modify her accusation of Nadal. Only of long layoffs not being always due to doping.

I completely disagree that she is within her rights to speculate, or that it's a freedom of speech issue. I think everyone understands that one place freedom of speech ends is where it affects the reputation of another, hence slander and libel laws. Now, each country's laws will differ on fine points, but I'm pretty sure Nadal's lawyers were consulted before he decided to sue. But she very specifically accused him of failing a doping test on French TV. And the ITF made a statement that he never has, and that there was no silent ban. Now, unless she has some proof that the ITF has overlooked or obscured, she's going to lose the case.

 

[Ricardo]

Agreed! Any loser can put nonsense on the internet. We all know that! Ahem!

ever heard of loserberg? Ahem

 

[brokenshoelace]

Sorry, Broken, but you are missing a few things. First and foremost, I am not saying that the injury layoff was a silent ban. I have not enough knowledge to be certain about this. This is her point. What I am trying to say is:

a) It is easy, and dumb, to simply discredit what she says by discrediting her. Basic ad hominem argument.

b) I do not care, and neither think it is relevant here, if what she said is or is not ground for a law suit. If this was a law forum, ok, but I guess we are interested in the sport related implications of this (whatever this implications are. I know most people are sure that I personally believe in the silent ban. All I can say is that I am honestly in doubt.)

c) As I am not a lawyer, my understanding of slander is lexical, not juridical. But I am sure you will agree with me that there is a dilemma between slander and freedom of speech. In her case, fine, she obviously has a target (and she was explicit, after all). But, to me at least, she must be able to defend the point of view that most long injury layoffs are silent bans. She is allegedly saying that for the sake of a clean sport (or maybe out of Nadal hatred. Again, I don't know). Given all that, for practical reasons, my understanding of slander becomes pretty close of what you put above.

It is over-simplistic to put everything down to Mrs Bachelot (aka "that woman") lack of credibility. As a result of that, after five pages, almost anyone addressed the OP, and the question in debate. Of course I understand the concern for Nadal reputation, but people out there already talk the talk. Haters will slander him one way or another, regardless of what we discuss here (and I want to believe that very few here qualify as haters).

Ummm, I'm not saying "You" as in Mrzz. It's a general "you," which in this case, refers to her. If she says the injury layoff is a silent ban, it's automatically slander unless she has the proof to back it up.

A) Notice I haven't mentioned a word about her. I don't even know who she is. But I guess other posters have so fair point.

B) Well, you should. Because your point is this isn't slander. I'm saying, factually it is. Now of course, if your point is that we, as people on forums, should still be able to speculate, then of course you're right. Hell, in another thread I stated that I believe all of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have taken illegal substances at one point or another.

C) Free speech is a really tricky subject that requires pages and pages of discussion. In this PC world, there is no true free speech, for better or worse. Now, in the name of "free speech," you and I should be able to speculate whether all those injury layoffs were silent bans. But she should know better, unless she has proof. In my professional opinion, there is no way Nadal and his team would take it to court if there was the merest hint of possibility she has any proof, because trials like this is when things can come out. Hell, even some unrelated things can come out that would be damaging to Nadal, so I don't think he would have taken that risk.

 

[mrzz]

Ok, after Moxie's last post, I see that she actually did accuse Nadal directly. I presumed she was a bit smarter than that (and see that my underlying assumption here is that she has no proof).

But, anyway, answering to Broken's B) point, yes, I was referring to we, people on forums. From the beginning I took what she said as speculation (even if now I see that she was actually accusing) and stood the point that discrediting her is no valid reason to ultimately disqualify what she is speculating. I am curious on the subject so I don't want to hear people saying "let's forget this because she is a moron".

And, back to the point Moxie raised: it does not matter to the word, but for me it is quite different if someone says "in my opinion so and so is a thief" than "I know for a fact that so and so is a thief". Probably both would be treated as slander, even informally or in a court of law, but I simply disagree. I do not agree that reputation is a good enough reason to forbid people from speculation. It allows for malice? Sure it does. But the other way around also does, in a way much worse, at least to my eyes.

 

[britbox]

 

[britbox]

Anyone French able to translate this? @isabelle ?

 

[Federberg]

ever heard of loserberg? Ahem

hello little boy, are you back? Takes one to know one I guess. Now back in your box

 

[brokenshoelace]

Anyone French able to translate this? @isabelle ?

They just relayed the information that has pretty much been covered in this thread. They only briefly mentioned it.

 

[Moxie]

Ok, after Moxie's last post, I see that she actually did accuse Nadal directly. I presumed she was a bit smarter than that (and see that my underlying assumption here is that she has no proof).

But, anyway, answering to Broken's B) point, yes, I was referring to we, people on forums. From the beginning I took what she said as speculation (even if now I see that she was actually accusing) and stood the point that discrediting her is no valid reason to ultimately disqualify what she is speculating. I am curious on the subject so I don't want to hear people saying "let's forget this because she is a moron".

And, back to the point Moxie raised: it does not matter to the word, but for me it is quite different if someone says "in my opinion so and so is a thief" than "I know for a fact that so and so is a thief". Probably both would be treated as slander, even informally or in a court of law, but I simply disagree. I do not agree that reputation is a good enough reason to forbid people from speculation. It allows for malice? Sure it does. But the other way around also does, in a way much worse, at least to my eyes.

Broken did a good job of separating discussing a person on the internet from making statements about them in public. And Mme. Bachelot did not say "in my opinion." She stated it as categorical fact, though I agree with you, both could be grounds for slander, depending on the law. You concede that she did accuse him. I don't think your disagreeing with the law makes in invalid, as to speculating in public about a person's nefarious/illegal/unethical behavior. And a reputation is a thing to be valued. Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that Nadal has, in fact, never doped. Look at what public speculation has done to his reputation. People say things, they make headlines, and it leaves a stain. That's why Nadal is suing.

As to demeaning the source, I would say that was where it started initially, because Isabelle told us that she was not a person well-considered in France. Using that information was about putting off people on the forums here from making more out of it than there was, initially. However, I think you've been guilting of making it more of a smear campaign than it ever was, by endlessly paraphrasing the words of others into worse shape. No one said "let's forget it because she's a moron." Those are your words. No one called her crazy, or a moron, or a bitch, or an airhead. (BB used airhead, but after you.) Basically we took Isabelle's word that she's not especially well-considered in France, and that she's a self-promoter. But that is neither here nor there when we take it to the legal level. Which is what we're debating now. Her character is irrelevant, I would think. I'm not bothered by who she is, but by what she said. If you separate what can be said anonymously on the internet from what can be said it a public forum, and you leave off character assassination of the source, I think we can discuss this rationally. And I think we have been.

 

[mrzz]

If you read page two of this thread, you will see people using words as bad as "moron" to describe her. Other poster used airhead before I did, I believe I even used quotes on the first time. And, the main thing is that this is not the first time the topic is discussed, and in the older discussions the general tone was the same. You are stating that I was, to say the least, exaggerating, but I was just putting in words the impression I got. Search for her name on this board, look for the adjectives used. I may have not quoted them exactly, yes, but my point was clear, which is the ad hominem argument. The way you wrote, it sounds that I am creating a story. I am not.

And I never said reputations have no value. I said I would not sacrifice freedom of speech for it. Your first post describing what she said on the video gave me the impression that her words were more vague that they actually were. I later conceded that she was indeed accusing him directly. If she does not have proof, then I agree that she needs to pay the price.

What call my attention is that, after pages and pages of discussion, we have not addressed the question: could she really have inside information? Remember that she did made general accusations too. You may find a lot of bad quotations on my posts (you are a very good defense lawyer), but, I am sorry, I still stand by the my initial take: people are ignoring her claims by assuming she is making them in a stupid, unfair and dishonest fashion.

 

[Moxie]

I don't think it's that useful to speculate whether or not she can have some specific claim to proof. The answer is either yes, no or maybe, but all would be a guess or an opinion. I actually shared my opinion on that: she makes no claims to it. She states what she did as if it were simple fact, which sounds to me like an assumption. My opinion.

 

[mrzz]

I see your point. Anyway, just to clarify a bit more, when I say "inside information" I am not necessarily thinking about Nadal only.
She seems so sure of what she says that I would not be surprised that she has inside information at least from some other cases... but don´t worry, I am bit curious on the subject, that´s all.

 

[isabelle]

trial next July 7th