My first (and probably only) Lance Armstrong post

London:

American Lance Armstrong suffered defeat in London's Court of Appeal Friday, just five days after his record seventh victory in the Tour de France.

Three judges ruled that the Sunday Times newspaper was entitled to argue that it could print a story containing allegations that Armstrong had taken performance-enhancing drugs. The cyclist has denied taking banned drugs.

The judges agreed with the paper that it was entitled to argue such a story was privileged on the basis it was in the public interest and the newspaper had a duty to publish it.

The Court also ruled that when the case comes to court the paper can argue a number of points which it says justified publication of the story.

But, and get this:

Last July, a Paris appeals court turned down Armstrong's request that the book should include his denial of the allegations.

Isn't that nice? The losers can print all the libelous accusation they want, but they don't have to print the winner's side. That's balance for you. They seem to be ignoring the fact that Mr. Armstrong has been the subject of laboratory tests since his early 20's, which initially established his phenomenal circulatory system which pumps a much higher than usual volume of oxygen through his system, although it was not all that efficient at converting the oxygen to energy. Further tests showed that through the years, due to his hard work and determination, as his physical fitness improved, his oxygen efficiency also improved.

Sour grapes, Frenchy.

(Sorry I don't have a reference for my statements above. I heard it on a radio interview on NPR's Science Friday program).