|
Post by Chris on Dec 14, 2007 14:16:14 GMT -5
You are wrong Balls. Your last post is factually incorrect. Look it up. You're the lawyer, not me....you have more plentiful access to this information than I do, but as it stands, what you just said is inaccurate. There are "source disclosure" laws at play in this country of ours that protect publications from libel lawsuits. There are proper procedures of disclosing sources of defamatory remarks that provide exemption from claims of libel for publications. I don't claim to know that Mitchell followed these procedures to the tee, but being a former Senator, and given his resume, I'd have to believe all his I's are dotted and T's crossed.
A player could go after MLB or Mitchell....anyone is allowed to file a law suit...but it would be sussed out that Mithcell and MLB would be the inappropriate targets of a libel suit. That's that.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 14, 2007 14:20:33 GMT -5
I understand there are protections against revealing sources. That's more 1st Amendment issues. But watch and see. If there are libel suits, MLB and Mitchell will be named.
A libel case will be VERY hard to win because they are public figures though.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Dec 14, 2007 14:22:31 GMT -5
There will be no libel case involving MLB or Mitchell. Sorry to ruin your day.
AGAIN, if anyone is served with papers, it will be the two people who ratted out all these names.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 14, 2007 14:23:42 GMT -5
If these guys are innocent, there could be millions of dollars involved. They will go after the deep pocket.
And of all people, Clemens is the one with the biggest chance to clean up. The damage to him is far worse, given his legacy.
As of today, ESPN did a poll of 80 of the HOF voters. Guys with actual votes.
If the Hall of Fame election were held today, would you vote for Roger Clemens?
YES 28 (35%) NO 21 (26.3%) UNDECIDED 31 (38.7%)
That's staggering.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Dec 14, 2007 14:25:53 GMT -5
Jesus Christ...this HAS TO BE more of your Balls I'm gonna argue just for the sake of arguing shtick, right? Please tell me it is....you can't be this dense.
This has nothing to do with PROTECTING ANONYMITY OF SOURCES. I agree there are laws dealing with that, but that's not even close to what I just said, and I believe I did write in English...no?
I said...there are procedures to follow and laws in effect that protect publications (the Mitchell Report) against libel suits if they properly cite the source of a defamatory statement (Brian McNamee) such that it is clear, with no ambiguity, that the statement in question was authored by the SOURCE (again, Brian McNamee), and NOT THE PUBLICATION reporting on the statement (again, the Mitchell Report).
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Dec 14, 2007 14:27:52 GMT -5
"There will be no libel case involving MLB or Mitchell. Sorry to ruin your day.
AGAIN, if anyone is served with papers, it will be the two people who ratted out all these names. "
Thank you Tom - the voice of reason, and more importantly, a competent understanding of the law and the goal of the Mitchell Report.
|
|
|
Post by Bad Mouth Larry on Dec 14, 2007 14:34:03 GMT -5
There will be no libel case involving MLB or Mitchell. Sorry to ruin your day. AGAIN, if anyone is served with papers, it will be the two people who ratted out all these names. if what ive been hearing on mks (which i hardly trust) the 2 rats have immunity. it would be mlb and mitchell liable since they made the news public information.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Dec 14, 2007 14:35:58 GMT -5
This conversation with Balls reminds me of the barracks scene in Stripes (Balls playing the part of Cruiser):
Cruiser: I joined the army 'cause my father and my brother were in the army. I figured I better join before I got drafted. Sergeant Hulka: Son, there ain't no draft no more. Cruiser: There was one?
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Dec 14, 2007 14:37:07 GMT -5
If they said that then they also do not know the laws.
I dont question the immunity thing (which means no one can get sued, actually) but in no way MLB and Mitchell would be held accountable. And I have heard this confirmed over the last day and a half, in numerous sources.
|
|
|
Post by Bad Mouth Larry on Dec 14, 2007 14:39:39 GMT -5
kay definitely said players should sue for libel if they deny the charges and he also said they cant sue the rats. well, who else is left to sue then? someone must be accountable. and it must be the people who leaked it to the public.
thats been my whole problem with this whole situation. we shouldnt know shit. the govt finds and penalizes these guys and nothing is leaked. thats how it shouldve worked. but too much money is out there to be made on this catastrophe.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 14, 2007 14:39:40 GMT -5
Attacking me will not change that there is a case here if the reports are not true. The standard is very high for libel, but this report was commissioned by MLB, publicized by MLB, and paid for by MLB. Mitchell is responsible for the content. Where he will likely not have to worry is the standard of proof for libel of a public figure. MLB probably gets off on the same grounds.
The tough standard of proof is the protection. Not "citing the source."
In addition to the other elements of defamation, Clemens would have to show "that the statement was made with "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth."
That's hard. Getting frustrated won't make you right.
The other things that need to be shown are as follows:
A false and defamatory statement concerning another; --QUESTION OF FACT The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (that is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement); --GOT IT If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and --MAYBE Damage to the plaintiff. --GOT IT
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Dec 14, 2007 14:44:14 GMT -5
Again, we're wasting time. No one will be suing anyone for anything, cause not only would it be a waste of time, it would be thrown out of court before it even went to trial.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Dec 14, 2007 14:45:55 GMT -5
Larry, authorities can only provide immunity in exchange for testimony in regards to the laws they broke and were "in trouble" for in the first place - in this case, dealing/using drugs.
However, they can not be protected if their testimony is fraudulent.
If a street drug user is arrested and offered immunity in exchange for ratting out his dealer, he is immune from the drug possession charges he was originally arrested for. However, if he gives up a name that is proven to NOT be his dealer, he is not immune to perjury charges and in fact his original deal for immunity may be voided as well.
So...let's play Devil's Advocate. Let's say Pettitte never used drugs and can prove it. Pettitte can go after McNamee for the defamatory comments. Now let's say Pettitte wins his case against McNamee. Now it's entirely possible that the authorities go to McNamee and say, "the testimony you gave us was proven fraudulent, and we can now rescind the offer of immunity against the original charges."
That's highly unlikely scenario...but I just want to make clear that McNamee is the author of the defamatory statement and is the one responsible for the statement, thus he can be called out on it through legal means....again, highly unlikely, but way more appropriate than suing Mitchell or MLB.
Of course, I'm overlooking the obvious with all of this - McNamee is probably telling the truth. But I'm not really after that....I am after clearing up Balls' ridiculous assessment that we can just go forth with broad-stroke disqualifications of past athletic achievements based on nothing more than here-say and testimony from three rats...and THAT is the notion that is moronic.
|
|
|
Post by Bad Mouth Larry on Dec 14, 2007 14:47:26 GMT -5
nobody will be suing anyone for libel because 95% of those names probably did use steroids. and there are probably 500-750 more names of players who used steroids that we likely will never know.
|
|
|
Post by Bad Mouth Larry on Dec 14, 2007 14:48:48 GMT -5
i really dont know. im just relying what that buffoon kay says.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 14, 2007 14:50:01 GMT -5
If MCNamee is shown to make fraudulent statements, you bet your ass the feds will throw him in jail.
And if McNamee is telling the truth, then that means these guys did artificially enhance their bodies, and it means that their stats are malarky.
And you are wrong about the testimony of the rats being hearsay. It is direct testimony. McNamee, if he's telling the truth, injected Clemens in the ass. That's not hearsay.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Dec 14, 2007 14:59:15 GMT -5
The testimony IS here-say at worst, or insufficient evidence upon which to convict at BEST... until it can be corroborated with more tangible, supplemental evidence. You know this...right? I assume you've spent time in a courtroom?
If McNamee IS telling the truth, yes, many achievements have been made through artificial means. However, if you can not, beyond any shadow of a doubt, corroborate McNamee's claims AS WELL AS come up with some sort of mechanism to prove, in some tangible way, how and what achievements were accomplished artificially, then NO records will be stricken or qualified as "artificially enhanced."
This is NOT Marion Jones. This is not a clear cut trail of failed drug tests and emphatic proof that performance enhancing drugs were in the system of an athlete at the time in which they performed a very specific athletic endeavor. Marion Jones does one thing - run fast. It has been proven that performance enhancing drugs were in her system at the time when she "ran fast" in a specific competition on a specific date, thus her performance on that date was nullified. This Mitchell report neither proves nor assesses anything of the sort.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Dec 14, 2007 15:02:14 GMT -5
One thing I am wrong about - I always thought it was "here-say." That doesn't make sense...of course it's "hearsay."
But you are WRONG about all the rest Balls.
|
|
|
Post by ajfreakz on Dec 14, 2007 15:13:55 GMT -5
interesting read from tyler kepner on RON VILLONE
One of the joys of being a beat writer is the downtime in the clubhouse when you really get to know the players. No tape recorders, no notebooks, just talk. You learn things this way, and develop trust, but you also simply enjoy the company of certain guys as people. Some of my favorites appeared in the Mitchell Report today. David Bell. Rondell White. And Ron Villone, the lefty reliever who spent the last two years with the Yankees, the team he grew up rooting for in New Jersey. Digging through the Mitchell Report, beyond all the explosive stuff about Roger Clemens, the one part I can’t shake is the section on Villone. The report says he bought three kits of human growth hormone from Kirk Radomski, at $3,200 each, and also pointed a Seattle teammate, Ryan Franklin, in Radomski’s direction. Villone paid in cash, the report says, twice stuffing the money inside a Mariners yearbook and mailing it to Radomski. Once, the report says, they met at a diner for a personal delivery. According to the report, when Villone was a Yankee in 2006, he asked Radomski again about obtaining more H.G.H., but Radomski had none. It’s hard to reconcile those seedy allegations with the person I know. If they’re true, it shows that I’m naïve, and it paints an illuminating picture about the culture of steroid use in baseball that will continue as long as there is no viable test for H.G.H. I called Villone this afternoon to ask about the report. Five hours later, he called back and gave me his lawyer’s phone number. He offered to answer my questions but warned that he would have little to say. He sounded glum, saying several times, “I hope things get resolved.” Was the report true, as it concerned him? “I can’t answer that, for better or for worse,” he said. Villone turns 38 next month and he’s unsigned for next season. I asked if he worried that this would diminish his chances of getting a job. “I sure hope not,” he said, “but I really can’t tell you anything more than that.” I asked a few other questions and got nowhere. “It’s a serious situation, and I’m trying to take it as serious,” Villone finally said. “It’s my name, and I’m going to treat my name with respect and the game of baseball with respect.” I wasn’t quite sure what he meant by that, given the allegations. But he said he respected that I had a job to do, and that’s why he wanted to call me back personally. I appreciated that. We wished each other well, and I suspect I will talk to his lawyer soon. I find myself feeling bad for Ron, bad that a long career might end this way for a nice man. Yet if the report is true, I feel a whole lot worse for the guys who’ve been behind him in the minors, the ones who never used steroids at all.
|
|
|
Post by Bad Mouth Larry on Dec 14, 2007 15:15:02 GMT -5
And if McNamee is telling the truth, then that means these guys did artificially enhance their bodies, and it means that their stats are malarky. thats simply not true. their stats were accumulated playing against competition that used steroids as well.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Dec 14, 2007 15:16:37 GMT -5
Good read there.
One funny thing - at least the guy was consistent in what he was charging....LoDuca's cancelled checks were also for that same $3,200.
|
|
|
Post by Bad Mouth Larry on Dec 14, 2007 15:17:32 GMT -5
great read aj. thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Bad Mouth Larry on Dec 14, 2007 15:18:50 GMT -5
Good read there. One funny thing - at least the guy was consistent in what he was charging....LoDuca's cancelled checks were also for that same $3,200. that takes away the personal training theory for those checks. what are the odds that a trainer spends the same time with every player, therefore the same amount in the check. the checks are the same because the players bought kits for the same prices. there goes that defense.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Dec 14, 2007 15:21:33 GMT -5
Eh, too bad Villone "paid in cash."
No cancelled checks there.
|
|
|
Post by ajfreakz on Dec 14, 2007 15:26:29 GMT -5
these guys "if innocent" have to speak asap.. the longer they wait it out and hide..
the more they'd seem to be guilty..
with congress trying to push for more out of the MLB i can see more names and lists coming out by this time next year..
|
|
|
Post by ajfreakz on Dec 14, 2007 15:37:37 GMT -5
the only way clemens or pettitte sue is if they actually are innocent
they wont be dumb enough i think to lie and then perge themselves like barry bonds did
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 14, 2007 15:41:23 GMT -5
McNamee directly shot Clemens in the ass, according to his testimony. That's not hearsay. And yeah, that was a good read.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Dec 14, 2007 15:42:42 GMT -5
What, you find stories about guys pricking one another in the ass a good read? Perv.
Folks, its the lawyers and the union that are telling these players to say nothing. They are preparing their defenses. Guys who speak out early (like David Justice, who made a fool of himself yesterday on YES) are hurting, rather than helping, their cause.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 14, 2007 15:45:17 GMT -5
This is true. They have to be very careful and choose their words carefully.
|
|
|
Post by thecaptain15 on Dec 14, 2007 16:02:58 GMT -5
They have to be very careful and choose their words carefully.
Advice you should adhere to Balls.......
|
|