Author Topic: Doping Scandal: Zim, Peyton Manning, Ryan Howard, Others: Report  (Read 16926 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 20808
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."

Quote
Even if neither player has ever used PEDs, this level of scrutiny can nevertheless still be quite an unpleasant experience. Worse yet, if Al Jazeera is able to further substantiate its allegations against Howard or Zimmerman, then such evidence could result in MLB suspending the players under the Joint Drug Agreement.

this is why I believe them- you'd have to be insane to open yourself to that scrutiny if you've used PEDs

Offline Ray D

  • Posts: 10073
"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.

If I understand correctly, the al Qaeda reporter was posing as a customer. Sly thought he was talking to a potential customer, not a reporter. He thought it was a private conversation.  He can say anything about anyone in a  private conversation if he had reasonable confidence that what he said would not be made public,

Offline skippy1999

  • Posts: 18833
  • Believe!!!
If I understand correctly, the al Qaeda reporter

:smh:


Offline Ray D

  • Posts: 10073

Offline PC

  • Posts: 47236
Why would they sue someone who's recanted?  Winning that would prove nothing.  It has nothing to do with pharmacists or prescriptions.

Some people really are innocent, you know.


Online HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 20808
Indeed

seriously, he could at least be factual- how is reporter for a network funded by the government of Qatar and run by the former information minister of Qatar which claims that Jews were wanted ahead of time on 9/11?

Offline mitlen

  • Posts: 66170
  • We had 'em all the way.
seriously, he could at least be factual- how is reporter for a network funded by the government of Qatar and run by the former information minister of Qatar which claims that Jews were wanted ahead of time on 9/11?

American cable news at its best.   Al-Jazeera fits nicely into the CNN, OAN, FOX, MSNBC, etc. niche.    Throw that BS against the wall and see what sticks.

(Disclaimer, I saw "The Big Short" yesterday and I'm still pissed.    This may last a few more weeks.)

Offline Ray D

  • Posts: 10073
Al-Jazeera fits nicely into the CNN, OAN, FOX, MSNBC, etc. niche.   

Al Jazeera is a terrorist front. Say what you will about CNN, Fox, etc. but they are not in that category.

Offline mitlen

  • Posts: 66170
  • We had 'em all the way.
Al Jazeera is a terrorist front. Say what you will about CNN, Fox, etc. but they are not in that category.

Watch FOX tonight when they tout the terrorists in Oregon.

(I know Tom, JCA, etc.   I've done it now.   I'm sorry.)

Offline skippy1999

  • Posts: 18833
  • Believe!!!
Watch FOX tonight when they tout the terrorists in Oregon.

(I know Tom, JCA, etc.   I've done it now.   I'm sorry.)

LOL when you gonna learn the secret handshake into Uncensored??

Offline skippy1999

  • Posts: 18833
  • Believe!!!
Anyway this is just proving my point-no one is believing this story because of who reported it, not because there isn't some compelling stuff there. 

Online HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 20808
American cable news at its best.   Al-Jazeera fits nicely into the CNN, OAN, FOX, MSNBC, etc. niche.    Throw that BS against the wall and see what sticks.

(Disclaimer, I saw "The Big Short" yesterday and I'm still pissed.    This may last a few more weeks.)

I hate most american media, but it's still in a different league than state media

(disclaimer, I read the big short, but I'm well passed anger- the american stock market is good at moving from one bubble to the next, afterwards some people on wall street walk away rich, others broke, most individuals who try to profit lose money, and the economy moves on.)

Offline varoadking

  • Posts: 28160
  • King of Goodness
Ain't much difference, far as I'm concerned.

Is it true they were simply going to call the network "Jazeera" until the inventor of the internet became involved and they had to give him top billing? 

Offline Ray D

  • Posts: 10073
Anyway this is just proving my point-no one is believing this story because of who reported it, not because there isn't some compelling stuff there. 
Well in my case, notwithstanding that it's Al Jazeera, I don't believe it because there isn't "compelling stuff there".

Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 30746
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Is it true they were simply going to call the network "Jazeera" until the inventor of the internet became involved and they had to give him top billing? 
well, to get cable slots, they did buy out Current TV or whatever network he invested in.

Offline Mattionals

  • Posts: 4592
Is it true they were simply going to call the network "Jazeera" until the inventor of the internet became involved and they had to give him top billing?

I heard it was a series of tubes...

Offline mitlen

  • Posts: 66170
  • We had 'em all the way.
LOL when you gonna learn the secret handshake into Uncensored??

I think about joinin' skip but I'd just into trouble.    :)

Offline wj73

  • Posts: 681
I'm too scared to even think about trying for the uncensored section. 

Offline mitlen

  • Posts: 66170
  • We had 'em all the way.
I'm too scared to even think about trying for the uncensored section. 

I have the wrong disposition.    :)

Offline Vega

  • Posts: 5418
  • And so we continue on.
I'm too scared to even think about trying for the uncensored section. 
It's actually pretty boring. Most activity is in the politics thread.

Offline skippy1999

  • Posts: 18833
  • Believe!!!
I think about joinin' skip but I'd just into trouble.    :)
I'm too scared to even think about trying for the uncensored section. 

aw c'mon, join the cool kids club :lol:

(ok I mainly lurk there but man we have some smart people here who know their stuff, the discussions can be really interesting and I learn a bunch from the politics and news stories threads)

Offline skippy1999

  • Posts: 18833
  • Believe!!!
It's actually pretty boring. Most activity is in the politics thread.

Yea it's not nearly as racy as the title makes it sound.

Offline skippy1999

  • Posts: 18833
  • Believe!!!
I have the wrong disposition.    :)

Feisty is a good disposition :mg: