dear curt schilling,

[shemp]

[ QUOTE ]


Hell, if he argues that he lost commercial opportunities due to what they said, and that it was intentionally negligent and malicious, he's got a near slam dunk. A clean man who is honestly intent on protecting his good name doesn't just give up, even if he knows he can't win.

[/ QUOTE ]

Several terribly argued or considered thoughts. I only comment on the "slam dunk" bit: the magnitude of what he might argue his loss to be is irrelevant to the burden he'd face to prove it.

[Edge34]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Hell, if he argues that he lost commercial opportunities due to what they said, and that it was intentionally negligent and malicious, he's got a near slam dunk. A clean man who is honestly intent on protecting his good name doesn't just give up, even if he knows he can't win.

[/ QUOTE ]

Several terribly argued or considered thoughts. I only comment on the "slam dunk" bit: the magnitude of what he might argue his loss to be is irrelevant to the burden he'd face to prove it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm simply saying, if he were so intent to protect his good name, he would stop at nothing. Maybe its not a perfect slam dunk, but if there are people out there maliciously providing misinformation to defame a figure like Barry Bonds, he could get a team of lawyers good enough to make something happen.

An innocent man who doesn't care to defend himself doesn't deserve anybody else's protection.

[niss]

[ QUOTE ]
If Curt is so worried about the integrity of the game, where was he 5, 10, 15 years ago? Why wasn't he outing players to the press?

[/ QUOTE ]

Or maybe when he went before Congress.

[MikeyPatriot]

re: libel

Does the fact that Game of Shadows is based on (lol) "sealed" grand jury testimony have anything to do with Barry dropping his suit?

[dlk9s]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If Curt is so worried about the integrity of the game, where was he 5, 10, 15 years ago? Why wasn't he outing players to the press?

[/ QUOTE ]

Or maybe when he went before Congress.

[/ QUOTE ]

A reason he didn't out anybody may have been because he didn't want to become a clubhouse pariah and possibly blacklisted by most/all major league teams. I'm not saying this definitely would have happened (it's not like I've ever been in an MLB clubhouse), but I could imagine even many of the clean players getting upset at one of their own breaking some sort of "code" by outing colleagues to the media.

This is all just conjecture, but it could be a reason why nobody has really spoken up until they were in retirement.

[MikeyPatriot]

[ QUOTE ]
A reason he didn't out anybody may have been because he didn't want to become a clubhouse pariah and possibly blacklisted by most/all major league teams. I'm not saying this definitely would have happened (it's not like I've ever been in an MLB clubhouse), but I could imagine even many of the clean players getting upset at one of their own breaking some sort of "code" by outing colleagues to the media.

This is all just conjecture, but it could be a reason why nobody has really spoken up until they were in retirement.

[/ QUOTE ]

He could have talked to the press anonymously.

[freemoney]

Since hes a public figure proving libel or slander becomes way more difficult then in situations involving the average person, to prove that the reporter was acting maliciously when there have been widespread reports of the same (re: Bonds steriod use) would be relatively impossible. So maybe do some more homework.

[niss]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If Curt is so worried about the integrity of the game, where was he 5, 10, 15 years ago? Why wasn't he outing players to the press?

[/ QUOTE ]

Or maybe when he went before Congress.

[/ QUOTE ]

A reason he didn't out anybody may have been because he didn't want to become a clubhouse pariah and possibly blacklisted by most/all major league teams. I'm not saying this definitely would have happened (it's not like I've ever been in an MLB clubhouse), but I could imagine even many of the clean players getting upset at one of their own breaking some sort of "code" by outing colleagues to the media.

This is all just conjecture, but it could be a reason why nobody has really spoken up until they were in retirement.

[/ QUOTE ]

He didn't have to name names.

[Edge34]

[ QUOTE ]
Since hes a public figure proving libel or slander becomes way more difficult then in situations involving the average person, to prove that the reporter was acting maliciously when there have been widespread reports of the same (re: Bonds steriod use) would be relatively impossible. So maybe do some more homework.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said it wouldn't be tougher than the average joe schmo. However, if you can show that someone was willfully ignorant of the truth and was malicious in their intent (and I think spreading known lies intentionally for profit as Game of Shadows would apparently do - Bonds was their book's primary selling point) it would at least be a very plausible suit.

I'm no lawyer, but I have to say if someone were assaulting my character and I had the means to defend myself like Bonds has, I would use every path at my disposal to protect my name. That's just me though. Meh.

[shemp]

First hand witnesses are notoriously inaccurate. A reporter is weaving together second and third hand information under a deadline. It is the nature of their business that if they get it right, it is a miracle. Nobody blinks unless they get it grossly wrong *and* significant harm is done. And even if they get it grossly wrong because a failure of due diligence-- you'd then have to prove it was malicious. Mind reading is tough.

You have a reasonable (although, familiar) insight. It is this: Bonds does not act like I would or how I think an innocent would. The second you try to embellish on that, you fail, imo.