Roselyn Bachelot Vs Rafael Nadal

Thought I would make a thread for this, as much talk about it is currently on the Shazza one.

For those not in the know. Ms Bachelot almost outright accussed Rafael Nadal of serving a silent ban for doping.
Bearing in mind there is no evidence , and apparently she has none either, for this accusation Nadal is gonna sue... as you do really.

So heres the thread for it, of course It goes without saying to be careful how you say things

Who will preside over it? Judy or Rinder??

I do not believe that Nadal will sue her in the end. It will end up with her silent apology, because it could really spread to astronomic dimensions and ITF will not allow to get it that far. But I support Roselyn and admire her for saying it loudly a lot.
I am very curious how long suspension Shara gets. If Shara gets more than 12 month suspension then we could expect that something new appears in this muddy waters. But I dont expect it just something laughable like 3 months.

You support Roselyn for making statements which she accepts are unsupported by any evidence that she holds? A strange stance to take.

I'm not sure how much of a battle this is given Bachelot herself has already admitted she had no evidence ? If Nadal does bother taking it to court, the decision will be based on the technical aspects of French law, and whether she's intentionally defaming him or just saying what she thinks, it won't have much to do with Nadal.

Quite. If it goes to court in France, Bachelot will probably use the "good faith" defence, whereby she wasn't intentionally defaming Nadal but saying something she thought was true. Nadal would have to prove malicious intent, which won't be easy.

Personally I doubt it will get that far.

It seems odd you can claim "good faith" when you have absolutely no basis for the statement at all though. Surely there must be some punishment if you are reckless as to whether it's true or not.

Given Toni has basically said Rafa will sue, it seems to me if he doesn't now do so, it will look a bit odd.

Bachelot has called the ITF, ATP and WADA corrupt. Her claims that there are silent bans and that players are allowed to dope without repercussions isn't about Roselyn Bacholet vs Rafael Nadal it's about Roselyn Bacholet calling tennis rotten to the core.

The ITF have made a statement but they need to be a little stronger if they want to protect the sport because the media's love for tittle tattle is damaging the sports reputation and by association all the players on the ATP.

"Accusations of (former sports minister) Roselyne Bachelot against Rafael Nadal are not only surprising, but also incorrect," an ITF spokesman in London told German news agency DPA.

The names of all players penalised for violating the tennis anti-doping program are announced publicly as required by the rules of the program and the world anti-doping code, the spokesman added.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2016/03/12/itf-defends-nadal-french-doping-claim

Born Slippy wrote:It seems odd you can claim "good faith" when you have absolutely no basis for the statement at all though. Surely there must be some punishment if you are reckless as to whether it's true or not.

Given Toni has basically said Rafa will sue, it seems to me if he doesn't now do so, it will look a bit odd.

She's apparently already said that she's got no evidence, I'd think she'll find a way of qualifying what she said to make suing her a pretty unworthwhile operation for Nadal, and as Hawkeye says the authorities are, if anything, more in the spotlight of her comments than Nadal - although his name brings more headlines.

Ultimately there's a difference between saying (a) X is true and I know it and (b) I can't prove it and there's no evidence to support my belief, but I believe Y.  That said, the more specific someone is about Y in the above examples, the more difficult it is to maintain the distinction, and she was pretty specific as I recall.

I just can't see what's in it for Nadal in suing if she's already said she's got no evidence - some people will think he's definitely a cheat, others think he's definitely clean, and others give him the benefit of doubts of varying sizes.  It's difficult to see how going after this minister who made a fairly irresponsible comment with no evidence will change anyone's view of Nadal for the better.  What it might do is encourage people to heap up such circumstantial evidence as there is about him, which can't be dealt with in such a clear-cut manner, and may be more harmful to his reputation than if he just says words to the effect, 'it's disappointing that a minister demeans herself and makes such a serious allegation against me and various sporting authorities when, as she admits, she has no evidence.  She has sought to blacken the names of many without a shred of evidence; I don't take her seriously and nobody with fairness or judgment does either.'

barrystar wrote:She's apparently already said that she's got no evidence, I'd think she'll find a way of qualifying what she said to make suing her a pretty unworthwhile operation for Nadal, and as Hawkeye says the authorities are, if anything, more in the spotlight of her comments than Nadal - although his name brings more headlines.

1. So she's completely sunk legally then - no evidence, so Nadal has clear defamation of character
2. Too late to qualify afterwards, she's already said it and the damage is done to reputation
3. Depends how much Rafa wants to make a point...given his new surge forwards he may not want the distraction of this right now

Yeah, you can't come back later on and qualify what you said. At least not here in Britain, but the laws in Europe can be perverse (I am a massive EU exit supporter, if that wasn't obvious!).

I think Rafa should just claim she made a "silent" apology to him behind the scenes. If she denies it, he can invite her to sue for libel. No?