Author Topic: Doping Scandal: Zim, Peyton Manning, Ryan Howard, Others: Report  (Read 16923 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline varoadking

  • Posts: 28160
  • King of Goodness
WTOP version of the lawsuit and comments section:

http://wtop.com/washington-nationals/2016/01/ryan-zimmerman-sues-al-jazeera-america-over-claims-in-documentary/

Interesting...his attorney is a Lerner...wonder if he is related to the other Lerners?

Offline skippy1999

  • Posts: 18833
  • Believe!!!

Offline mitlen

  • Posts: 66170
  • We had 'em all the way.
Those comments are charming, "go get them ragheads, Zim!" :roll:

That's one of the reasons I mentioned the comments.    It is amazing at what some will write.    Wonder what their comments would be if their names were attached.

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 20808
what I don't under stand is why al jazeera allowed it to air. Any credibility they were working towards is flushed down the toiled- now they're the group the got it so wrong that players actually sued

Offline mitlen

  • Posts: 66170
  • We had 'em all the way.
what I don't under stand is why al jazeera allowed it to air. Any credibility they were working towards is flushed down the toiled- now they're the group the got it so wrong that players actually sued

They'll fit right into the American cable news niche now.

Offline Mattionals

  • Posts: 4592
That's one of the reasons I mentioned the comments.    It is amazing at what some will write.    Wonder what their comments would be if their names were attached.

Probably the same.

Offline skippy1999

  • Posts: 18833
  • Believe!!!
what I don't under stand is why al jazeera allowed it to air. Any credibility they were working towards is flushed down the toiled- now they're the group the got it so wrong that players actually sued

I just don't know that they got it ALL wrong, I mean they had a real live MLB'er going to Sly for his PEDS right on camera so there was something there.  And they've proven Sly did work at the clinic in 2011 and Manning hasn't refuted that the clinic sent his wife HGH through the flippin' mail, I mean there is some smoke even though people are choosing not to see it.  I guess we'll see how right they feel they were to air it if they fold quickly now that they've actually been sued or if they fight. 

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 20808
I just don't know that they got it ALL wrong, I mean they had a real live MLB'er going to Sly for his PEDS right on camera so there was something there.  And they've proven Sly did work at the clinic in 2011 and Manning hasn't refuted that the clinic sent his wife HGH through the flippin' mail, I mean there is some smoke even though people are choosing not to see it.  I guess we'll see how right they feel they were to air it if they fold quickly now that they've actually been sued or if they fight. 

that got it wrong enough that Quinn Emmanuel (a very large very prominent law firm for whom MLB players are probably a minimal part of their business) felt comfortable suing them on grounds so hard to win in this country that any you'd expect major news outlet to do the research and fact checking to be immune from. 

Offline skippy1999

  • Posts: 18833
  • Believe!!!
that got it wrong enough that Quinn Emmanuel (a very large very prominent law firm for whom MLB players are probably a minimal part of their business) felt comfortable suing them on grounds so hard to win in this country that any you'd expect major news outlet to do the research and fact checking to be immune from. 

they sued them for sure, let's see how far they go with it.  I'm not saying they're right about Zim and Howard and all the Packer people Sly name dropped but you can't deny Teagarden in the guy's living room talking about all the drugs he's gotten from Sly.  Again, we'll see how hard they fight and how much the players push, once AJ answers the judge will issue the deadline for discovery and it'll be on then. 

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 20808
getting their agent who happens to be a lawyer or some small firm to sue is one thing. Getting a prominent firm to put themselves out there and file is another. I doubt they go forward unless they're very comfortable the case doesn't get dismissed. To me this means that the story is false

Offline skippy1999

  • Posts: 18833
  • Believe!!!
I doubt they go forward unless they're very comfortable the case doesn't get dismissed. To me this means that the story is false

What does this mean?  You doubt who goes forward? 

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 20808
What does this mean?  You doubt who goes forward? 

I don't think Quinn Emmanuel would file the law suit unless they were comfortable that they could at least get it in front of a jury.

Offline skippy1999

  • Posts: 18833
  • Believe!!!
I don't think Quinn Emmanuel would file the law suit unless they were comfortable that they could at least get it in front of a jury.

I was going to say you do realize the majority of cases never see the light of trial but you may be right, but I think that's more because they know they'd get a jury pool of people similar to the WTOP commenters who won't believe anything reported by "raghead news" even when they have MLB'ers on flippin' camera doing the drugs.  I don't know, I just think this story is being written off because it was reported by "mooslims" as the commenters so eloquently phrased it, perhaps big law fell into that trap as well.

Offline mitlen

  • Posts: 66170
  • We had 'em all the way.
I was going to say you do realize the majority of cases never see the light of trial but you may be right, but I think that's more because they know they'd get a jury pool of people similar to the WTOP commenters who won't believe anything reported by "raghead news" even when they have MLB'ers on flippin' camera doing the drugs.  I don't know, I just think this story is being written off because it was reported by "mooslims" as the commenters so eloquently phrased it, perhaps big law fell into that trap as well.

This.   Plus, everybody knows there ain't no Al Geezeera smarter'n us.   It's almost like folks think Al-Jazeera doesn't have access to pretty damn good attorneys.

Offline Mattionals

  • Posts: 4592
I was going to say you do realize the majority of cases never see the light of trial but you may be right, but I think that's more because they know they'd get a jury pool of people similar to the WTOP commenters who won't believe anything reported by "raghead news" even when they have MLB'ers on flippin' camera doing the drugs.  I don't know, I just think this story is being written off because it was reported by "mooslims" as the commenters so eloquently phrased it, perhaps big law fell into that trap as well.

While having Teagarden gives them some credibility, Al-Jazeera needs firm evidence to incriminate the others. Manning has more linked to him than either of Howard or Zim do, so I'd be worried for him. At least, this is what we as the public know today. Things could change.

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 20808
I was going to say you do realize the majority of cases never see the light of trial but you may be right, but I think that's more because they know they'd get a jury pool of people similar to the WTOP commenters who won't believe anything reported by "raghead news" even when they have MLB'ers on flippin' camera doing the drugs.  I don't know, I just think this story is being written off because it was reported by "mooslims" as the commenters so eloquently phrased it, perhaps big law fell into that trap as well.

They don't have Howard or Zimmerman on camera. As far as I can tell they have nothing on them

Offline NJ Ave

  • Posts: 3484
Let's be honest - 95% of people would take something, that was banned but which they thought would have no long-term negative health effects, if they thought the substance would result in them earning a couple extra million dollars.

There are tens of millions of people who take other drugs with far less benefits (just a good feeling) and far more penalties (fines, jail, health risks etc).

People get butthurt over this like they're children who just found out (SPOILER ALERT FOR SLATE!!!!) that Santa Clause isn't real.

Offline skippy1999

  • Posts: 18833
  • Believe!!!
They don't have Howard or Zimmerman on camera. As far as I can tell they have nothing on them

Well as far as I can tell Al Jazeera didn't accuse them of anything, Sly did.  And Sly had just enough credibility (Teagarden showing up) to where I could see Al Jazeera thinking they could get away with airing his comments, but I guess it's up to a court to decide now. 

Offline skippy1999

  • Posts: 18833
  • Believe!!!
Let's be honest - 95% of people would take something, that was banned but which they thought would have no long-term negative health effects, if they thought the substance would result in them earning a couple extra million dollars.

There are tens of millions of people who take other drugs with far less benefits (just a good feeling) and far more penalties (fines, jail, health risks etc).

People get butthurt over this like they're children who just found out (SPOILER ALERT FOR SLATE!!!!) that Santa Clause isn't real.

I don't care and assume they're all on something, I just found it fascinating that this story was being swept under the rug so quickly.  Of course now the Ryans have filed suit so it may get a lot more coverage. 

Offline mitlen

  • Posts: 66170
  • We had 'em all the way.
Let's be honest - 95% of people would take something, that was banned but which they thought would have no long-term negative health effects, if they thought the substance would result in them earning a couple extra million dollars.

There are tens of millions of people who take other drugs with far less benefits (just a good feeling) and far more penalties (fines, jail, health risks etc).


Let's be honest - 95% of people would take something that would result in them earning a couple extra million dollars regardless of the long term effects.


Offline NJ Ave

  • Posts: 3484
Let's be honest - 95% of people would take something, that was banned but would result in them earning a couple extra million dollars regardless of the long term effects.

Could also be true. Probably depends on the nature of the long-term effects, the size of the immediate financial reward and how much you were making in your normal career.

Offline skippy1999

  • Posts: 18833
  • Believe!!!
I take back my "don't care"; I do care, only for the fact these guys are getting unnaturally big and strong and now you get like 5 good people knocked out every game it seems, it sucks that so many great players get injured so often now and we're stuck watching 3rd and 4th stringers by the end of the season and if that's got to do with the drugs they're taking then that sucks, but I'm not naïve enough to think we'll ever get back to a "clean" game. 

Offline houston-nat

  • Posts: 19050
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/howard-and-zimmerman-sue-for-defamation-unlikely-to-win/

"While filing suit may provide a boost to Howard and Zimmerman in the short-term in their public relations battle against the network, the players are incurring some degree of risk by initiating legal action, and ultimately appear unlikely to prevail in their respective cases."

The article then explains why they are unlikely to win:

"However, under the law, so-called “public figures” — those in the public spotlight, including most professional athletes — are required to meet a higher standard in order to prevail in a defamation case. Rather than merely prove that the defendant made a false statement that hurt their reputation, public figures must instead prove that the wrongdoer acted with “actual malice.”

"...courts usually require that a public figure show that the defendant acted with extreme carelessness, often motivated by some form of ill will towards, or intent to harm, the plaintiff.

"it is interesting to note that the players have only chosen to sue Al Jazeera and two of the reporters involved in the story, rather than Charlie Sly himself. Even though Sly has subsequently retracted his allegations, the players still could have sued him for originally asserting the allegedly defamatory statements. At the same time, though, suing Sly would involve some risk that the pharmacist would be able to produce evidence substantiating his initial allegations, a risk that may have deterred Howard and Zimmerman from suing Sly directly."

Offline NJ Ave

  • Posts: 3484
Would you play Russian Roulette one time for $1 million? $10 million? $100 million?

Offline skippy1999

  • Posts: 18833
  • Believe!!!
"it is interesting to note that the players have only chosen to sue Al Jazeera and two of the reporters involved in the story, rather than Charlie Sly himself. Even though Sly has subsequently retracted his allegations, the players still could have sued him for originally asserting the allegedly defamatory statements. At the same time, though, suing Sly would involve some risk that the pharmacist would be able to produce evidence substantiating his initial allegations, a risk that may have deterred Howard and Zimmerman from suing Sly directly."

Bingo.