BoxRec

Can the legal experts on here, please comment on this …

I was having an argument about drug cheats and said too many people are getting away with it due to confidentiality and loop holes in the system. My first question is what possible loop holes are there for adverse findings in drug tests?

Lately, it seems, Everytime there is a adverse finding case, it seems the one who has the deepest pockets wins … as the BBBofC are well known to be run without a lot of money in the bank. And people like Liam Cameron gets banned all because he cannot afford the legal fees to fight his case.

Can the skint person or company apply for legal aid, or is it worth a top lawyer accept a “no win, no fee” agreement? Also is there such a thing as corporate legal aid

Another question for you …

I know a sportsman who liked shagging birds. The Sun got wind of a certain young ladies claims and the sportsman got a super injunction out to prevent the publication of the story.

Another case is a footballer has a super injunction out to prevent him being named concerning allegations of rape? Hows that right?

Why did the rich but guilty sportsman win?

Not meaning to repeat myself … why isn’t it more common in law where “no win, no fee” cases are taken up lawyers.?

What is the purpose of legal aid?

https://www.gov.uk/legal-aid/eligibility

Have a read re legal aid. In terms of rich people, money talks!!

Loopholes in terms of getting out of drug tests will be other reasonable excuses for how the drug got into their system, procedural issues and technical wording in documents which gives them an escape route.

You need to qualify with a lack of finances for legal aid in the UK and only specific types of cases are eligible which are usually the more serious ones in civil cases. That legal aid won't usually be provided by a top lawyer unless you have connections. The best lawyers really do charge the most in these types of cases and they will often drown the other party in fees if they can't afford to keep up.

There are technicalities in law which allow those wealthy enough to exploit them, same as tax loopholes. It's sometimes even there for that specific reason but in terms of injunctions, it's often to avoid prejudice before/during trial and enforce privacy in civil cases which serve no true interest to the public.

I don't think corporate legal aid is a thing.

With no win no fee, the lawyers will have to see it as worth their time. It's often professional negligence or other incidents where there is an insurance company on the other side. In those cases the payout is large and you would sacrifice a larger cut of the money to the lawyer in those circumstances. If the case is not seen as winnable or is does not offer a big payout then it won't be seen as worth the risk for them.

I'm pretty sure I know which sportsman you are talking about

Small point - merely mentioning the existence of a super-injunction is a breach of the super-injunction. It's what makes it different from the rather less super type of injunction. Did the OP mean injunction or super-injunction?