This really,
is al the inevitable shouting and hand wringing just an inevitability of a tabloid society, or it it justifiable, and companies should pay the price of their staff's actions?
for me its one of the good things about social media / internet age that we can identify and name and shame people who behave like this.
Not more than the article referring to brakes and/or braking as breaks and breaking. Terrible.
I think if you are driving around in a branded car (as he was) then the company should carry the can for its employees actions.
If he was in a personal vehicle and was being a knob on his own time, that is much more of a grey area.
[quote=worldwide ]or it it justifiable, and companies should pay the price of their staff's actions?
It's not staff though, is it? It's the co-owner, who will presumably be hit directly in his pocket if people don't buy those wheels. More to the point though, somebody so involved in the cycling industry really should know better.
IMHO it's a good thing that there are now ways to hold people to account for such actions.
Usually three sides to every story and breaks 👿 would seem very odd for someone in his position to act like that for no reason.
WTF is a bloke who makes money selling stuff to cyclists doing abusing cyclists?
Yes he deserves to have his business impacted. He's clearly an absolute fool
Usually three sides to every story
Indeed, with the fourth one generally being true
Still no harm in a bit of internet frothing and pre-judgement. Pitchfork sales are through the roof
The linky is borked. Could it be that someone has got lawyered-up?
(edit) - so a few words of explanation would be appreciated.
Link still working for me. Though I would be very cautious about running that story in the absence of footage/proof it's him, and before giving Mr Fenton his right to reply!
Link no longer works so I guess he lawyered up
Basically a cycling team out training got abused and attempts to knock them off by a car driver who happens to be the boss of a bicycle wheel company.
Page gone & quite rightly - cycling weakly braking news ffs
Basically a cycling team out training got abused and attempts to knock them off by a car driver who happens to be the boss of a bicycle wheel company.
Allegedly - not that this matters in today's world.
Lynch the b'stard. Guilty until proven innocent.
[img] 
[/img]
Innocent or not, that earring is unforgivable. Decent caption, too.
(Source: http://2011.pro-lite.net/images/stories/NEWS_PDF/28_prolite_3.11.pdf)
The page is still clearly accessible.
But basically, if its got your company name on then you would think that being a bit more careful would be sensible. However, its cycling and we all know that no one ever expects to have to come to terms with their actions when being clearly identifiable as belonging to a club.
Perhaps he was delivering a package and in a rush
Perhaps we'll have a full retraction and grovelling apology within the hour...
Anyone remember the quality brand that was coyote ?
He should be locked up for that at the very least !
In all honesty though I met him a few times as a youth working in the trade and he was always nice to us minions
[i]Though I would be very cautious about running that story in the absence of footage/proof it's him, and before giving Mr Fenton his right to reply! [/i]
I quite understand your viewpoint but I wonder if Mr Fenton would be making any comment whatsoever without the previous exposure on the internet.
Getting someone to comment on a story by running it anyway and risking libelling them is quite extreme as journalistic practices go.
Even if the story is true, which it may be, they may end up in the position of having to prove it, which will be a PITA.
Depends what you mean by "prove". Libel is a civil offence, hence the burden of proof is only balance of probabilities - given apparently multiple sources making the claim, such a burden of proof doesn't appear to be a difficult hurdle (in a word against word case, 2 people against 1 would seem sufficient for that). He would have to be pretty sure of his case and have some other proof to overcome the multiple witnesses in order to want to [s]waste[/s] spend his money on lawyers.
I note that their FB comment was posted 4 days ago, when he was apparently on the way home on a plane, and would comment when he got home. Maybe his lawyers have advised against commenting in public, but you'd think in that case they'd also take down their current FB post.
It tends to work the other way. Even if they were prepared to defend it by taking statements etc from all the riders, the lawyerly cost of doing so would likely be far higher than the cost of settling quietly out of court. So the insurers would probably fold at the earliest opportunity.
Indeed, with the fourth one generally being true
I thought the third version was the truth?
Getting someone to comment on a story by running it anyway and risking libelling them is quite extreme as journalistic practices go.
No, it isn't. Fairly typical. How many times does a 'news' story end with "Mr X declined to comment"
Seems to be more prevalent these days. Most of these type of pieces aren't quite so defamatory though, or the reporter has something they can use to back it up with privilege - statement from police or local authority etc. I tended to have a more belt and braces approach to defamatory stuff, possibly too cautious.
[quote=martinhutch ]It tends to work the other way. Even if they were prepared to defend it by taking statements etc from all the riders, the lawyerly cost of doing so would likely be far higher than the cost of settling quietly out of court. So the insurers would probably fold at the earliest opportunity.
Ah, this is the "side effect" of the change in costs awards for such cases, which results in defendants settling even when they're in the right? Wasn't there supposed to be some low cost arbitration service available in order to prevent that happening?
Though it still seems to be a bit of a game of who blinks first, as in order to make the defendant run up legal bills, the claimant has to be prepared to run up their own legal bills (in a case they know they will lose if it goes to court?) Does the burden of proof on the defendant make it so asymmetric?
Presumably though the actual settlement will be fairly low in such a case - ISTM that unless Mr Fenton can prove his innocence then the damage is done. The primary purpose of bringing such a case surely is still to defend your reputation and if there is in reality nothing to defend...
Stuff like that is big news in the cycling world.
There's no excuse for him not responding to it immediately, or sorting it out at the time of the incident.
Sounds like a good brand to avoid. Why support arseholes?
ISTM that unless Mr Fenton can prove his innocence then the damage is done
Mr Fenton doesn't have to prove anything. Burden of proof is entirely on the publisher. As for the nature of the settlement, what they've published is likely to have a direct impact on his previously unblemished reputation among the very people who would be most likely to give him business. It's a pretty damaging type of allegation for someone who is part of the cycling community.
I'm playing devil's advocate a little - I don't know if it's true or not, but if someone approached me with that story, I'd be wanting some video footage!
[quote=martinhutch ]Mr Fenton doesn't have to prove anything. Burden of proof is entirely on the publisher.
Legally - though as above, proof is balance of probabilities, and if it went to court then I presume Mr Fenton would also want to provide evidence (burden of proof might be on the defendant, but in reality in a contested case I can't see how that makes a difference given that standard of proof - the defendant only needs to provide a tiny bit more evidence than the plaintiff). Though I'm assuming Mr Fenton might want to "prove" his case in a non legal sense, if indeed he is innocent, which is surely the main point for him of bringing any such action.
As for the nature of the settlement, what they've published is likely to have a direct impact on his previously unblemished reputation among the very people who would be most likely to give him business.
Of course - but at some point contesting the case becomes cheaper. Especially if they know they will win the case and are prepared to call his bluff (if he is in the wrong, then it's surely not something he wants to publicise by losing in court).
I would be very surprised if there was a successful libel case against Cycling Weekly based on the story so far.
Cycling Weekly say they asked Steve Fenton for his side of the story, but had not had a response from him, and I guess that under those circumstances it's reasonable for them to go ahead and publish based on what the cyclists involved have told them. I suspect it would be different if Steve Fenton had told them that the allegations were untrue and that he would give them his side of the story (or get his lawyer to do so) when he got back home, and in that scenario I expect that CW would have waited for his detailed response.
Under the circumstances, if the story were untrue, I imagine CW could easily defend any libel case seeking damages by publishing a correction/retraction once they had received Steve Fenton's account, and by arguing that any damage caused in the intervening period to Steve Fenton's reputation and business was caused by his own failure to respond to their request for his reponse.
The fact that there is no comment from Steve Fenton after all this time, makes it look like the article was not without substance.
Often the decision is taken out of the hands of the editorial team, especially if you are relying on proving something on the balance of probability. We shall see. It's equally possible he's decided to keep his head down. We will see.
Edit there's absolutely no requirement for a defamed person to provide comment. The published story must stand on it's own merits
The FB posting by P-L was on the 18th. At the end of another working day, one has to ask if Mr Fenton is still on the plane.
[quote=martinhutch ]Edit there's absolutely no requirement for a defamed person to provide comment. The published story must stand on it's own merits
Of course, but given clear testimony from several cyclists and no rebuttal, what more is required for a story to stand on its own merits? Relying on more 3rd (or 4th) hand testimony, there are mates of the cyclists involved replying to that FB post. If it is a conspiracy to stitch up Mr Fenton it's an incredibly well done one - there might be 3 or 4 sides to a story, but in case you hadn't already worked out I know which side I'm on.
True but the merits include the fact they have not denied it or commented and folk may read something into thatthere's absolutely no requirement for a defamed person to provide comment. The published story must stand on it's own merits
That wasn't my point, and it's a technical one in reply to this
Under the circumstances, if the story were untrue, I imagine CW could easily defend any libel case seeking damages by publishing a correction/retraction once they had received Steve Fenton's account, and by arguing that any damage caused in the intervening period to Steve Fenton's reputation and business was caused by his own failure to respond to their request for his reponse.
rather than me supporting this guy. It was simply that an editor can't use any lack of comment to prop up the initial story or mitigate any damage it has caused. Fenton is welcome to stay silent.
A correction/retraction also does not defend against a libel case, just potentially mitigate the damage.
Of course people can draw what they want from his response or lack of it, that's natural. It will be interesting to see if he's just hoping it will go away or planning some other statement.
Worldwide- do you have a personal interest in this? Not casting aspersions, etc etc, and I'm sure somebody else would have posted the case, just mildly curious, but wondering why after 8 odd years of registration you chose to break cover by starting this thread?
To answer the question - yes, they do. The 'boss' is the public face of the company and their words/actions influence how the company is viewed by it's customers - current and potential.
Unless and until Fenton comments it's a little difficult to achieve any sort of balance in opinions etc.
Having said that, he's had enough time to respond even if only to say that he can't comment due to legal advice.
The silence on his part would incline to me think he's in the wrong; if that is true then he is some bellend - director of company which supplies bike components would suggest he has some interest in and empathy with cyclists and would be aware of inconsiderate/dangerous driving.
Would it be acceptable or hypocritical if chief exec of tobacco company or brewer said.....I don't smoke/drink and I don't care about the company's customers; the reaction would likely be....there's the door and goodbye.
That Gerald Ratner moment - if you're old enough to remember.
I know quite a few bike shop owners who never ride a bike 😉
[quote=bencooper ]I know quite a few bike shop owners who never ride a bike
Are they on here?
Ben - odd response and bears no relation to the thread
bencooper - Member
I know quite a few bike shop owners who never ride a bike
Probably can't fit them in their Bentleys... 🙂
Ben - odd response and bears no relation to the thread
Bears quite a lot of relation to the post immediately before it, however.
I'd say CW is confident that the riders are trustworthy and that having several witnesses bolsters the story.
Considering how close knit the world of pro-cycling usually is, I'd have no reason to doubt them and would have no qualms about publishing it myself - having made an attempt to contact him.