But there's no such thing as bad publicity, right?

[SackAttack]

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2381381

Long story short: the guys who wrote the book talking about Bonds and steroids are getting sued. Okay, that's to be expected.

Not for libel, though.

No, apparently Barry Lamarr's attorney is filing suit for "the use of illegally obtained grand jury transcripts."

That's not exactly a rousing affirmative defense.

[st.cronin]

Well, this could be interesting. I've been wondering for a while now why there was no official investigation into the leaks. I'm pretty sure that's a jailable offense, but afaict, there was never any interest at all on the part of law enforcement.

[Brillig]

I dunno - I'm sure the legal team for BondsCo will say that this is the easier charge to prove, and they're probably right.

I mean, for a libel suit, they'd have to prove that Barry didn't use steroids, no? And aside from having to prove a negative, we all know that he actually did...

Come to think of it, it's harder than that, they'd have to prove that Barry didn't *know* he was taking steroids. How the heck do you prove that someone didn't know something?

[SackAttack]

I dunno - I'm sure the legal team for BondsCo will say that this is the easier charge to prove, and they're probably right.

I mean, for a libel suit, they'd have to prove that Barry didn't use steroids, no? And aside from having to prove a negative, we all know that he actually did...

Come to think of it, it's harder than that, they'd have to prove that Barry didn't *know* he was taking steroids. How the heck do you prove that someone didn't know something?

True enough.

Does it hurt him more, though, to bring suit for libel and fail, or to not even file the libel suit, but instead file suit for the use of the transcripts? The one at least shows he's trying, while the other can be interpreted as bullying.

I just think - as I told RFUS on AIM - that doing nothing would probably be less damaging to Bonds' Hall of Fame chances than bringing this particular lawsuit. Even bringing a failed libel suit would still give his supporters cover. Aside from "We can't prove libel, so let's try to get them thrown in jail for printing something that we can't prove is malicious falsehood," how does this suit remotely help his image?

[Surtt]

I mean, for a libel suit, they'd have to prove that Barry didn't use steroids, no? And aside from having to prove a negative, we all know that he actually did...




I think bonds would have to prove the authors knowingly published false information.

In other words
1. Bonds did not take steroids.
2. The authors knew he did not take steroids.

Not something I (or apparently Bonds) would like to take on in court.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I've been waiting for someone to file a libel suit. Anybody whose been accused. But no go. For one simple reason -- the accusations are not false. By filing suit you open up the whole legal process to depose witnesses under oath about what Barry said and what he did. A sure fire loser. You would think anyone who was innocent would sue for this kind of false statement -- unless of course you can't prove it.

[SackAttack]

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2382588

Judge refuses to block authors from receiving profits of their book, says Barry's lawsuit has little chance of success.

Fun quote:

""It's a very ill-conceived lawsuit," said Bruce Simon, chairman of the California State Bar Commission's Committee on Unfair Competition and Antitrust Law. "I think the judge obviously sees that."'

So, uh, wanna try again, Barry?

[Fouts]

I'd be pissed if I were Barry. Couple of writers making some big bucks off his name. He needs to co-author his own book and get some of that. Maybe after he gets in the Hall.

[stevew]

I'd be pissed if I were Barry. Couple of writers making some big bucks off his name. He needs to co-author his own book and get some of that. Maybe after he gets in the Hall.


He makes 16 million a season. I'm sure he's doing okay.

[Fouts]

He makes 16 million a season. I'm sure he's doing okay.

But he has to provide for his family. Ask T.O.

[stevew]

But he has to provide for his family. Ask T.O.

Good point.

[Mr. Sparkle]

Libel is ridiculously hard to prove nowadays. If it weren't, would there be nearly as many of those supermarket gossip rags?

[saldana]

according to Jason Smith on All-Night on ESPN radio the other night, the whole book is not just about bonds...apparently there is a decent amount of shit about Gary Sheffield as well, so it will be interesting to see if anyone DOES try to come up with a Libel suit....the thing about libel suits though...it ain't libel if its the truth!

[larrymcg421]

It's especially hard to prove libel against public figures like Bonds and Sheffield. The thinking is that even if the information is untrue, they have a public forum where they can dispute any allegations, unlike the average person.