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.