Bonds to sue authors

[stitchface]

but not for libel, to stop them from profiting from illegally obtained grand jury testimony. So, what does that tell you?

 

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

[soccer10k]

but not for libel, to stop them from profiting from illegally obtained grand jury testimony. So, what does that tell you?

 

What everybody except idiot stubborn Giants fans already know. That he roided up to achieve what he has since 1999.

[stitchface]

but not for libel, to stop them from profiting from illegally obtained grand jury testimony. So, what does that tell you?

 

What everybody except idiot stubborn Giants fans already know. That he roided up to achieve what he has since 1999.

 

yea, basically he doesn't want a trial over whether he did or didn't do 'roids - just wants to keep people from publishing stuff.

[wekse]

good for him...he's sooo living the american dream

[rocket]

Maybe someone smarter than me can confirm, but isn't it pretty dumb to sue for libel for what's written in a book? Wouldn't Bonds have to prove that he didn't take steroids, which even if you're Rafael Belliard, it's 100% impossible to prove you didn't take something.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Maybe someone smarter than me can confirm, but isn't it pretty dumb to sue for libel for what's written in a book? Wouldn't Bonds have to prove that he didn't take steroids, which even if you're Rafael Belliard, it's 100% impossible to prove you didn't take something.

 

I'm not sure, but it may be that Bonds doesn't have to prove that he didn't take steroids, but just that the authors don't know if he did, and are passing their lessthanfacts off as facts. Again, not positive if that's right.

[imb]

The key to all libel suits is the truth.The burden of proof is on the authors. If he wants to sue for libel, all he has to do is tell them to prove it. If they can't, he wins. The fact that he isn't is about as telling as it can get.

[treebird]

The key to all libel suits is the truth.The burden of proof is on the authors. If he wants to sue for libel, all he has to do is tell them to prove it. If they can't, he wins. The fact that he isn't is about as telling as it can get.

 

i don't think this is true.

 

i think the burden of proof is actually on bonds, and bonds has to prove malicious intent, which he almost certainly can't, whether he took steroids or not.

[imb]

actually, at this point, bonds reputation is so shot, that im pretty sure you could write just about anything about him and get away with it.

 

And I did get it wrong, if someone says that I took steroids, to sue for libel I have to show that I didnt. Not sure how one would go about that.

[frostwyrm]

The key to all libel suits is the truth.The burden of proof is on the authors. If he wants to sue for libel, all he has to do is tell them to prove it. If they can't, he wins. The fact that he isn't is about as telling as it can get.

 

i don't think this is true.

 

i think the burden of proof is actually on bonds, and bonds has to prove malicious intent, which he almost certainly can't, whether he took steroids or not.

 

I'm not a lawyer but I'm guessing malice is not relevant in the case of true statements. Plenty of malicious statements have been printed about Josef Stalin, who has living relatives, but you can be sure none of Stalin's relatives will ever sue for libel because the malicious statements about him are true.

[treebird]

The key to all libel suits is the truth.The burden of proof is on the authors. If he wants to sue for libel, all he has to do is tell them to prove it. If they can't, he wins. The fact that he isn't is about as telling as it can get.

 

i don't think this is true.

 

i think the burden of proof is actually on bonds, and bonds has to prove malicious intent, which he almost certainly can't, whether he took steroids or not.

 

I'm not a lawyer but I'm guessing malice is not relevant in the case of true statements. Plenty of malicious statements have been printed about Josef Stalin, who has living relatives, but you can be sure none of Stalin's relatives will ever sue for libel because the malicious statements about him are true.

 

i guess i worded that badly. malice definitely is not relevant in the case of true statements.

[USSoccer]

I think the legal term is that Bonds would have to prove that the authors showed reckless disregard for the truth. I think.

[davecubsfan]

If he sues for libel then since he is a "public figure" he must prove actual malice. This is why most celebrities don't win libel cases because actual malice cannot be proven without a shadow of a doubt. It's much easier for a private individual to sue and win a libel case than it is a for a public figure. This case will go nowhere and Barry will lose.

[Bull]

actually, at this point, bonds reputation is so shot, that im pretty sure you could write just about anything about him and get away with it.

 

And I did get it wrong, if someone says that I took steroids, to sue for libel I have to show that I didnt. Not sure how one would go about that.

 

If I was in baseball, I would have myself tested on a regular basis starting way back in 1998 with the Andro thing.

[The Voice of Reason]

Didn't Palmeiro try to make himself loook good by threatening to sue Canseco?

 

Gee I wonder why he never went through with it.

[RynoRules]

The key to all libel suits is the truth.The burden of proof is on the authors. If he wants to sue for libel, all he has to do is tell them to prove it. If they can't, he wins. The fact that he isn't is about as telling as it can get.

 

That is completely incorrect.

 

See this link for a good general synopsis of what is required to prove a case for libel in most jurisdictions:

http://www.mobar.org/handbook/libelelements.htm

[RynoRules]

The key to all libel suits is the truth.The burden of proof is on the authors. If he wants to sue for libel, all he has to do is tell them to prove it. If they can't, he wins. The fact that he isn't is about as telling as it can get.

 

i don't think this is true.

 

i think the burden of proof is actually on bonds, and bonds has to prove malicious intent, which he almost certainly can't, whether he took steroids or not.

 

I'm not a lawyer but I'm guessing malice is not relevant in the case of true statements. Plenty of malicious statements have been printed about Josef Stalin, who has living relatives, but you can be sure none of Stalin's relatives will ever sue for libel because the malicious statements about him are true.

 

i guess i worded that badly. malice definitely is not relevant in the case of true statements.

 

The general rule is that dead guys cannot sure for defamation - be it slander or libel.

[Stu]

but not for libel, to stop them from profiting from illegally obtained grand jury testimony. So, what does that tell you?

 

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

 

 

It's very difficult to win a libel case if you are a public figure. The standard is much higher than if you or I sued for libel. Not saying Bonds is innocent, because it sure seems he is guilty, but just because he is not suing for libel doesn't necessarily say so much.

[CuseCubFan69]

From what I have heard is that Bonds is sueing because the information was obtained illegally through his testomony during his Grand Jury statements.

[OleMissCub]

If he sues for libel then since he is a "public figure" he must prove actual malice. This is why most celebrities don't win libel cases because actual malice cannot be proven without a shadow of a doubt. It's much easier for a private individual to sue and win a libel case than it is a for a public figure. This case will go nowhere and Barry will lose.

 

100% Correct. Bonds must prove actual malicious intent on the part of the authors to win a libel suit.

[Soul]

The key to all libel suits is the truth.The burden of proof is on the authors. If he wants to sue for libel, all he has to do is tell them to prove it. If they can't, he wins. The fact that he isn't is about as telling as it can get.

 

i don't think this is true.

 

i think the burden of proof is actually on bonds, and bonds has to prove malicious intent, which he almost certainly can't, whether he took steroids or not.

 

I'm not a lawyer but I'm guessing malice is not relevant in the case of true statements. Plenty of malicious statements have been printed about Josef Stalin, who has living relatives, but you can be sure none of Stalin's relatives will ever sue for libel because the malicious statements about him are true.

 

i guess i worded that badly. malice definitely is not relevant in the case of true statements.

 

The general rule is that dead guys cannot sure for defamation - be it slander or libel.

 

If Bonds wanted to bring a case against the authors, then the authors would be the defendants. That means the burden of proof would be on *BONDS* to prove they lied, it was malicious, etc. Defendants don't have to prove their innocence in this country.

[TheDude]

It's very difficult to win a libel case if you are a public figure. The standard is much higher than if you or I sued for libel. Not saying Bonds is innocent, because it sure seems he is guilty, but just because he is not suing for libel doesn't necessarily say so much.

 

The thing anyone should infer about him not suing for libel is that he has good legal advice.

[RynoRules]

It's very difficult to win a libel case if you are a public figure. The standard is much higher than if you or I sued for libel. Not saying Bonds is innocent, because it sure seems he is guilty, but just because he is not suing for libel doesn't necessarily say so much.

 

The thing anyone should infer about him not suing for libel is that he has good legal advice.

 

Give this man/woman a star. Even if he won, he'd spend millions and be in for a very nasty battle, not to mention drawing further attention to the issue. I frequently advise clients on unfair competition issues (which has some similar implications and issues), and tell them exactly the same thing.

[jaydee]

This book sounds mostly like a joke. I think I heard on ESPN that the authors said Bonds told people he wanted to take steroids, because he was jealous of Mcgwire and Sosa? That sounds so made up its not even funny....he very well may have taken illegal drugs, but cmon that is just silly the guy hates the media attention he gets

[Andy]

This book sounds mostly like a joke. I think I heard on ESPN that the authors said Bonds told people he wanted to take steroids, because he was jealous of Mcgwire and Sosa? That sounds so made up its not even funny....he very well may have taken illegal drugs, but cmon that is just silly the guy hates the media attention he gets

Completely false. Bonds LOVES getting media attention - just not when he gets caught cheating and breaking the law.