It is NBC. They are Ivestia to SeeBS's Pravda with sewage like Keith Olbermann and Jack Cafferty. Not to mention major supporters of Tobacco farmer/election thief Al Gore's globalwarmingbaloney. Go ahead and sue them Johnny for what it's worth. Al Sharpton was actually enhanced losing the libel suit filed by Steve Pagones.

Cafferty's on CNN, schuey. The best I can tell from his bio is that he hasn't been with NBC since the Reagan administration.

Cafferty's on CNN

I think we can all agree that Cafferty is definitely ON something.

For a second I thought Jack Keefe had adopted a pseudonym.

I hereby nominate "I walk around with my shirt off" as a defense in any argument on this site.

That said, is that even legal?

centerfielder?

I don't know about Damon, but boomer wells can take his shirt off to prove his innocence any day.

Dressing as Paula Abdul=guilty

Walking around with shirt off=innocent

Glad that's been straightened out.

Seems like walking around without pants might be a better way to prove that you dont use the roids.


Might see a lot of shrunken testes.

Also, anyone who refuses to take their pants off is a juicer.

I don't know about Damon, but boomer wells can take his shirt off to prove his innocence any day

Mo Vaughn is innocent!

Dayton Moore: "Alberto Callaspo has assured me that his alleged wifebeating was an isolated incident utterly taken out of context, and I believe him, because I've seen him walking around with his shirt off."

I asked my agent about legal action, but he said it wasn’t worth it.

So it's about money? Ha.

Damon has had a lot of nagging injuries the past few years, what kind of injuries are they? Many ligament issues?

Theo Epstein: "I swear that I did not reneg on that Larry Bigbie trade, and you can take that to the bank, because I walk around with my shirt off."

What a joke Damon is.

He had an opportunity to appear in front of Mitchell and declined it. He knew from the invitation to appear that his PED usage had been uncovered and he declined the opportunity to provide any contradictory information.

He now has full legal recourse and tons of money to litigate, yet he claims clearing his name is "not worth it". Here's a quick, cheap way Johnny. Arrange for a lie detector test to be administered by an independent and respected testor. Then publicize the results. I imagine that's '"not worth it" either, as we all know what the results would be.

Here's another option. Cut the childish lies and tell the truth.

Even steroids couldn't improve Damon's throwing arm.

Well, Damon is a lot more ripped than in his years with the Royals. That's obvious walking around in a full uniform.

Is is possible for a defense to be so clueless that you believe it anyway, because there's no way a guilty man wouldn't have thought of a better thing to say?

What a joke Damon is.

He had an opportunity to appear in front of Mitchell and declined it. He knew from the invitation to appear that his PED usage had been uncovered and he declined the opportunity to provide any contradictory information.

He now has full legal recourse and tons of money to litigate, yet he claims clearing his name is "not worth it". Here's a quick, cheap way Johnny. Arrange for a lie detector test to be administered by an independent and respected testor. Then publicize the results. I imagine that's '"not worth it" either, as we all know what the results would be.

Here's another option. Cut the childish lies and tell the truth.

You do know that he wasn't named in the report, right? This theoretical lawsuit is about a bogus list being presented on the news as true, and it had Damon's name on it. It has nothing to do with Mitchell.

Well Al now they are all up set because Johnny Demon to prove he is not on stereos he wears no shirt I tried that too Al so every 1 could see my dainty natural pecs but 1 time I went to the Dairy Queen for a Über Blizzard and they said to me no Shirt No Servais and so I had to choose which either raise suspicons about whether my brawn was All Natural Keefe ™ or go with out my chilled treat and like they say Al the Spirit is Willing but the Flesh is Week. Al I know my spelling is not as good as normel today but I am trying to Improv I will read Baseball Digest Build Your Word Power every day this Off Season.

Even steroids couldn't improve Damon's throwing arm.

Or his tiny little hamster brain.

You do know that he wasn't named in the report, right? This theoretical lawsuit is about a bogus list being presented on the news as true, and it had Damon's name on it. It has nothing to do with Mitchell.

Right. But still...if you had multi millions and you were that upset about being dragged through the mud, it wouldn't be worth whatever the cost would be to take a stand and make them retract their image damaging words?

Right. But still...if you had multi millions and you were that upset about being dragged through the mud, it wouldn't be worth whatever the cost would be to take a stand and make them retract their image damaging words?

I'm pretty sure that his agent told him that he could spend every penny he has and it wouldn't accomplish anything.

And he's right. Anyone who believes that Damon was on steroids is going to still believe it no matter what the result of a lawsuit. Or a lie detector. Or ANYTHING.

It's a waste of time and money.

[i] You do know that he wasn't named in the report, right? This theoretical lawsuit is about a bogus list being presented on the news as true, and it had Damon's name on it. It has nothing to do with Mitchell.

Clemens, I meant Clemens, not Damon.

No Larry, I didn't. My bad entirely, thanks for pointing out my mistake.

Well, let's see. Have the stations already retracted and We're-sorryed? If not, everyone on the false list could sue the St. Louis station and pocket their $10 apiece. If they're lucky. Meanwhile, the story's already discredited for everyone but the black helicopter crowd and perhaps schuey.

Makes more sense to spend your millions if you have something to hide. (Hi, Roger. You'd be more believable if Andy in Pasadena had joined the chorus.)

Anyone who believes that Damon was on steroids is going to still believe it no matter what the result of a lawsuit. Or a lie detector. Or ANYTHING.

Larry, the line I always think of when questions like this arise is the one that Casey Stengel used when they asked him the secret of his managing success.

He said that he always had 5 players who liked him and 5 players who hated him, and that the trick was to keep the 5 who hated him away from the 15 who were undecided.

Damon would never be able to convince "everybody" by demanding a lie detector test or suing NBC, but it might very well go a long way towards convincing the currently undecided, and marginalize the others.

Damon would never be able to convince "everybody" by demanding a lie detector test or suing NBC, but it might very well go a long way towards convincing the currently undecided, and marginalize the others.

Or he could keep the words "Damon" and "accused of steroids" in the public light for a year or more. And if he won, he wouldn't get anything more valuable than a public apology and retraction, which he already has.

Seems like walking around without pants might be a better way to prove that you dont use the roids.

For the amount of money Mitchell spent putting together that report, he might have been better off hiring prostitutes to seduce a bunch of players. Not only could they inspect the condition of the players' genitals, but they could use more devious methods: "You're not on steroids, are you? Because steroids get me so hot!"

Right, there is an amount of damage control that a truly injured party would be interested in creating.

Anyone else whose wild guess is that the "two sources" cited by the blunderer were two Websites - one of which copied the made-up list from the other one?

The level of quality of sources for newspapers versus TV is a wide chasm. For a newspaper, the reporter would have to identify the two sources to an editor, who would decide whether they were sufficiently credible.

Damon would never be able to convince "everybody" by demanding a lie detector test or suing NBC, but it might very well go a long way towards convincing the currently undecided, and marginalize the others.

Or he could keep the words "Damon" and "accused of steroids" in the public light for a year or more. And if he won, he wouldn't get anything more valuable than a public apology and retraction, which he already has.

The point is that if he can marginialize the professional doubters to the point where they resemble a bunch of "Who killed Vince Foster"ites, then what those people think or say doesn't mean jack to anybody but themselves.

The level of quality of sources for newspapers versus TV is a wide chasm. For a newspaper, the reporter would have to identify the two sources to an editor, who would decide whether they were sufficiently credible.

To be fair to TV, they have much tighter deadlines than newspapers do, in general.

It tells me that most attorneys worth anything will tell you that a libel or slander suit is really hard to win if you're a public figure.

Since all baseball players are public figures, the players would have to show in court that the statements in the Mitchell report were made with "knowing falsity" and a "reckless disregard for the truth."

That's very hard to prove.

It tells me that most attorneys worth anything will tell you that a libel or slander suit is really hard to win if you're a public figure.


Ernest Murphy is glad that Michael Mone and Howard Cooper didn't tell him that. I don't know the threshold for "anything", but I'd think 2.01 million dollars is pretty damn good.

So let me get this. A "false" list is published and unsourced. It is shown within a couple of hours to be false and have no clear ties to the actual list. It is removed from the websites of those few newsgroups who published it in the first place.

And, yet, there are folks here assuming it is now up to Damon to demonstrate that he has no ties to PEDs.

I'm as likely to believe a player used PEDs as anyone. IMO, any MLB player has ties to PEDs in that the game was awash in them without any testing or penalties. But to use the "false" list as evidence is staggering to me. I mean, I've read on the internet that Furtado ##### monkeys. Is it now up to him to refute this allegation? Jesus. We're all (society, that is) very close to real stupidity.

But the first (and inaccurate list) would have to be shown that it was published while knowing it was not true for any player named on it to have a cause of action. Or else all they can do is complain. And I doubt that WNBC believed that their first list of players was completely untrue and published it anyway.

But the first (and inaccurate list) would have to be shown that it was published while knowing it was not true for any player named on it to have a cause of action.

Nope, Reckless disregard for the truth will work just fine. Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).

Best guess - almost nobody on the fake list was actually clean.

So let me get this. A "false" list is published and unsourced. It is shown within a couple of hours to be false and have no clear ties to the actual list. It is removed from the websites of those few newsgroups who published it in the first place.

And, yet, there are folks here assuming it is now up to Damon to demonstrate that he has no ties to PEDs.

I'm as likely to believe a player used PEDs as anyone. IMO, any MLB player has ties to PEDs in that the game was awash in them without any testing or penalties. But to use the "false" list as evidence is staggering to me. I mean, I've read on the internet that Furtado ##### monkeys. Is it now up to him to refute this allegation? Jesus. We're all (society, that is) very close to real stupidity.

Or just a desire to demonstrate the sort of "sophistication" that confuses itself with an understanding of logic or evidence.

And a reckless disregard for the truth would be nearly impossible to prove especially in light of WNBC pulling the report fairly quickly.

And a reckless disregard for the truth would be nearly impossible to prove especially in light of WNBC pulling the report fairly quickly.


Actual malice may be benefitted by "pulling a report", but it would not even read on the intent during the initial publication. Like I said, Earnest Murphy is sure happy that he didn't listen to the old wives tales about defamation. Heck, the SJC was even willing to concede the reporter got "the gist" of information right on that one.

If someone were to seek what is it, redress? over this, do they have to prove the other party was "reckless" or do they have to prove what they printed wasn't the "truth", or both? Would a jury's main task be to decide if they were reckless or didn't print the truth?

So if the players don't starting filing libel suits by the bushelful they are complicitly guilty of what was said?

If someone were to seek what is it, redress? over this, do they have to prove the other party was "reckless" or do they have to prove what they printed wasn't the "truth", or both? Would a jury's main task be to decide if they were reckless or didn't print the truth?


Presuming that we agree that all the parties are public figures then you must show:

(1) The statement was false;
(2) That it was published knowing it was false or with a reckless disregard for truth; and
(3) That there was actual malice toward the person.

The third one will be the hard ones for most of the MLB players. However, if you had a paper that was constantly dogging Damon, then the case becomes better.

I can't believe that anyone who played major league baseball, even if for just one game, would not be considered a public figure.

I love the way the Post's headlines are in all caps. It's such a shouty newspaper anyway.

Yah, I got all those, I just didn't know what reckless means, is it some kind of reasonable person standard kind of thing? And if they disregard the truth, does that mean they knew what the truth was prior to printing?

I've been curious about this for while now considering this Mitchell Report, and I'm glad to see BL here to potentially answer. The burden of proof in the Mitchell Report was rather low. What are the mechanics of suing there for defamation of character? I'm thinking of former Canadian Prime Minister and his successfully having sued the RCMP when they investigated him for taking kickbacks (years later, just this week, he finally admitted to having accepted the money).

I'm thinking of a Brian Roberts-type from the report, a player for whom the evidence was really flimsy.

For your reading pleasure, the Sullivan decision as reference earlier by Backlasher.

It could explain more that some with my legal background, which involves watching lots of episodes of "Law & Order."

And if they disregard the truth, does that mean they knew what the truth was prior to printing?


No, just that they know that information was likely to be false.

Here is a pretty good list of various interpretations, instructions, etc. that define a reckless disregard for the truth.

A good instruction is: "...In turn, a “reckless disregard” of a statement's truth or falsity is a high degree of awareness of the probable falsity of the statement. To prove that the defendant showed a reckless disregard for the allegedly defamatory statements' truth or falsity, the plaintiff must have presented sufficient evidence to permit the conclusion that the defendants in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of the statements."'


. What are the mechanics of suing there for defamation of character

The defamation standards are outlined in my previous post. IMHO, it would be much harder in the Mitchell report. He did try to get a comment on the statements, and many of the statements did check out. I think it would be hard to prove the statements are not true, specifically to prove that Roberts did not say to Bigbie that he did steroids in 2004. Even if you could throw doubt on the veracity of the statement, Mitchell stil shows his notes, has other people in his office agree that the statements were said by Bigbie, and you can show that many of Bigbie's statements were true. I think it would be hard to show a reckless disregard for the truth in that instance.

Mitchell also can claim the qualified priviledge defense of information needed to be known by the employer. I think you would have to show he had a woodie on for Roberts for it to have any traction.

As in most legal questions, can this all be overridden by the Chewbacca defense?

Until they prove otherwise in court or with polygraphwith the polygraph I will believe everybody who is concerned by steroids is a closet klansman who only out to get Bonds.

'm thinking of a Brian Roberts-type from the report, a player for whom the evidence was really flimsy.

I haven't actually read the report, but from the excerpts and talk about it, my impression is that Mitchell himself was very careful not to make any sorts of statements along the lines, "Brian Roberts used steroids." He simply laid out his evidence. If Mitchell accurately reported his conversation with Bigbie, then I would think it's Bigbie who would be liable there, not Mitchell. And even there, I can't see that being a case worth Roberts' time to make unless he gets suspended based on it - it's just two guys with different recollections of a conversation from what 4-5 years ago?

IMO, Mitchell should have only included allegations he thought credible and substantiated by some credible independent evidence. There is no indication of that with respect to Roberts. The fact he declined to meet with Mitchell is not probative in my view.

Am I correct that there is no evidence that has been made public with respect to usage of PED's by Brady Anderson or Luis Gonzales?

The usual phrase was something along the lines of "Mr. X was asked to discuss the matter with the commission. Mr. X declined to do so."

The so-called false list was the real list. Both Troy Glaus's are criminals.

Josh Gibson used roids and they were invented by Booker T. Washington from peanuts in the 1930s.

And Darin Erstad used teh-royds

So if the players don't starting filing libel suits by the bushelful they are complicitly guilty of what was said?

Absolutely, in "the court of public opinion." That's the most funnest court of all! None of those irritating rules of evidence. And don't get me started on that accountability crap. I don't know about your court of public opinion, but mine has a 100% conviction rate! Awesome!

Circa 1998:

“It sucks, I am wondering if there is any legal course to turn to,” Clinton said. “I walk around with my shirt off. If I had anything to hide I wouldn’t do that. I really don’t know what to say. There seems to be some people who don’t like me”

Incidentally, I had the Democratic debate recorded on Fox News, and they were running Damon's name as being on the list for a good 20 or 30 minutes after the report was released. I was getting more and more enraged every time I saw it. They also mentioned Mark McGwire as having his name in the report; that's literally true, of course, but not in the way it was implied.

The real problem has been that not enough of the guilty are being identified.

How does "identifying the guilty" help the problem? How does it help us come up with ways to prevent use in the future?

***

Maybe one of the lawyers can step in here, but I fail to see how anyone in the Report could sue. The Report doesn't say, for instance, "Roger Clemens used PED." It's says, "McNamanamenemanenmee says Clemens used," or something like that. How can Clemens sue Mitchell or MLB over that? If McNamaenenee said it, he said it. Mitchell is reporting what people said, and he's showing copies of checks.

Circa 1980:

"Yeah I got 'roids. It sucks," said George Brett. "I try and get on base all the time so I don't have to sit on the ####### bench!"

Maybe one of the lawyers can step in here, but I fail to see how anyone in the Report could sue. The Report doesn't say, for instance, "Roger Clemens used PED." It's says, "McNamanamenemanenmee says Clemens used," or something like that. How can Clemens sue Mitchell or MLB over that? If McNamaenenee said it, he said it. Mitchell is reporting what people said, and he's showing copies of checks.

The mere fact that someone else said something defamatory does not allow you to repeat it with impunity. Repeating defamatory remarks is defamatory too. Just as you can't tack on "IMO" to escape liability, you can't tack on, "Bob says," to do so.

But because Clemens is a public figure, the standard is different; rather than falsity being the only criterion, actual malice -- which means knowing or reckless falsity -- is required. So as long as Mitchell's sources were basically credible, Mitchell can report what they say.

I'm sure this has been discussed, but as a very casual observer of steroids threads, I have to say: This seemingly new meme of "He had an opportunity to talk to Mitchell, so he deserves whatever" really pisses me off. He was under no obligation to do so, his Union specifically recommended he (and the others) not, and it would have done him basically zero good. I do not understand why not meeting that kangaroo court is in any way, shape, or form affecting people's opinions.

Maybe one of the lawyers can step in here, but I fail to see how anyone in the Report could sue. The Report doesn't say, for instance, "Roger Clemens used PED." It's says, "McNamanamenemanenmee says Clemens used," or something like that. How can Clemens sue Mitchell or MLB over that? If McNamaenenee said it, he said it. Mitchell is reporting what people said, and he's showing copies of checks.

Remember I'm just applying to law schools, but under that set of facts, they wouldn't win in court (he could sue, of course.) However, I didn't watch the verbal presentation of the report, so perhaps Mitchell wasn't careful in the way he worded things. I highly doubt it, though.

Not one libel or slander lawsuit has been brought yet.

That tell you anything?

That libel and slander lawsuits are basically impossible to win for public figures, and their high-paid legal counsel is both aware of this and willing to inform their clients of such?

Remember I'm just applying to law schools, but under that set of facts, they wouldn't win in court (he could sue, of course.) However, I didn't watch the verbal presentation of the report, so perhaps Mitchell wasn't careful in the way he worded things. I highly doubt it, though.

In the report itself, Mitchell makes it quite clear that he refused to put any names in the report unless he was quite sure they used PEDs. He takes the position that the names named were users. His main protection is the truth. Radomski's allegations are so incredibly backed up, it would be very unlikely for them to be untrue -- he has cheques, he has subsequent admissions of those he accuses (11, in fact) and independent corroboration from players like Piatt. Mitchell regarded the truth quite well.

At least in Canada, BL's citation of what constitutes reckless disregard is too narrow. Reckless disregard can also include indifference to whether something is true or not. That applies to the fake list, FWIW.

And Mulroney did not "successfully sue" anyone. The case settled.

At least in Canada, BL's citation of what constitutes reckless disregard is too narrow

Daryn,

I have not seen a case in the US where reckless disregard has been interpreted to be mere indifference of the truth.

I should, however, correct and clarify one thing. Nieporent's recitation is correct, and corrects an error in my posts, when he states actual malice can be proven by the knowing falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. I have set actual malice up to look like more of a seperate and distinct element independent of the act of the knowing falsity, and that impression would be incorrect. (IOW, you don't have to show a grudge, but showing a grudge could help in explaining the nature of the reckless disregard).

I think the Murphy case is a nice primer on how to win a defamation case.

Of course, Clemens could sue McNamee rather than Mitchell.

I think the Murphy case is a nice primer on how to win a defamation case.

Starting with Rule No. 1: If possible, make sure your client is a sitting judge.

Dammit; Srul beat me to the comment.

I might add that even if -- or perhaps especially if -- you're a judge, you probably shouldn't try to extort more money from the opposing party after you win.

When I was in journalism school, we had a lot of discussions over who was a public figure and who wasn't. One of the names we discussed was Harold Baines, whom I thought was obviously a public figure, but most of the students in my class had never heard of him.

Backlasher's tactics are nothing if not half truths, willful misunderstanding and intimidation.

Should we be shocked at how he interprets and ESPN poll?
Amazed that he posits a single edge case especially one with extenuating circumstances as a proof?

Why should anyone believe a word from his mouth?