Sun:Grimsley names 3 O's in banned drug case

[now]

And Palmerio didn't take him up on the offer. Wonder why?....

Exactly. :SuN038:

[Why Not?]

I posed the lawsuit question somewhere way back in this thread, and was told basically the same thing. It seems to me that the accuser would be the one who should be forced to verify his accusation with evidence, not the other way around. he is the one being sued. The same as a prosecutor would have to prove their case to get a conviction.

But I don't know if there is anything illegal or libelous in Grimsley saying he thinks a guy is on steroids, especially when he's being questioned by law enforcement. It isn't like Grimsley went to the New York Times and spouted off making all kinds of accusations. The feds asked him if there were other guys taking steroids or speed and he told them what he thought.

[66-70-83-??]

I think Grimsley can probably say whatever he wants in this context (not that it's right or admirable). I mean, I can say "I think Mark Carver did steroids" and I don't think you could really sue me for that.

Grimsley can say whatever he wants NOW. But, he better not fib to the feds in an affadavit or courtroom.

Speaking of libel/slander. This is from the Media Law Resource Center Lawsuit:

Libel and slander are legal claims for false statements of fact about a person that are printed, broadcast, spoken or otherwise communicated to others. Libel generally refers to statements or visual depictions in written or other permanent form, while slander refers to verbal statements and gestures. The term defamation is often used to encompass both libel and slander.

In order for the person about whom a statement is made to recover for libel, the false statement must be defamatory, meaning that it actually harms the reputation of the other person, as opposed to being merely insulting or offensive.

The statement(s) alleged to be defamatory must also have been published to at least one other person (other than the subject of the statement) and must be "of and concerning" the plaintiff. That is, those hearing or reading the statement must identify it specifically with the plaintiff.

The statement(s) alleged to be defamatory must also be a false statement of fact. That which is name-calling, hyperbole, or, however characterized, cannot be proven true or false, cannot be the subject of a libel or slander claim.

The defamatory statement must also have been made with fault. The extent of the fault depends primarily on the status of the plaintiff. Public figures, such as government officials, celebrities, well-known individuals, and people involved in specific public controversies, are required to prove actual malice, a legal term which means the defendant knew his statement was false or recklessly disregarded the truth or falsity of his statement. In most jurisdictions, private individuals must show only that the defendant was negligent: that he failed to act with due care in the situation.

It looks to me that if one of these guys is truly innocent- they could have a case.

Their reputations are harmed- check. It was published to many people- check. Obviously, if Grimsley is lying that would be reckless disregard for the truth (not to mention put his azz in a sling for lying to feds).

Even if they didn't win in the court of law- they would probably win in the court of public opinion for having the stones to go through with a suit to clear their name.........

As opposed to the finger wagging Raffy who threatened LOUDLY to sue Canseco. Of course, he didn't follow up on his threat.

Edit: I put one paragraph in the above discussion on slander/libel law in italics. That is because this is where it is a murky grey area. This is why we need lawyers to read this crap and translate for us. It seems to me this parargraph is all about individual lawyer/judge interpretation. But, what do I know ? I am not a lawyer.

[oriole_way]

Several posters have wondered why the NFL isn't scrutinized as much as MLB with regards to steroids.

I'll give my take on that. Please note that I haven't actually looked at any official steroids policies so my "facts" could be slightly off but the gist should essentially be accurate. Also, I don't mean to imply that the NFL's steroid testing policies can't be improved upon (they can be) or that it's the best sport at testing for steroids (that would be the Olymics IMO).

1. The NFL has been testing for steroids since 1989 I believe. The MLB only started testing a few years ago. MLB only started testing because of intense public pressure. Otherwise, they probably still wouldn't be testing. At least that's my perception.

2. The NFL has always meted out decent punishment. I believe that a first offense has always been 4 games, or a quarter of the season. A second offense results in a full season suspension. On the other hand, MLB's initial steroid policy only called for treatment for a first time offender. That was later amended to a 10 day suspension. Finally, it was upgraded to a 50 day suspension. This changes were only enacted because of pressure from Congress, not because Donald Fehr and the union believed it was right.

3. Even though baseball is called America's pastime and has been around much longer than fotball, football is really now America's favorite sport. Possible reasons? Football has been ahead of baseball in terms of marketing, revenue sharing, a salary cap etc. Football has enjoyed relative labor peace since 1982. Meanwhile baseball has had multiple work stoppages and has had a World Series cancelled.

Neither baseball nor football currently tests blood samples. Neither has their steroid testing done by an independent agency, ala the Olymics. However, if one of the 2 sports were to incorporate blood testing or turn over their testing to an independent agency, who thinks it would actually be baseball that adopts these changes first? Not me.

[weams]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15093345/

[66-70-83-??]

Several posters have wondered why the NFL isn't scrutinized as much as MLB with regards to steroids.

I'll give my take on that. Please note that I haven't actually looked at any official steroids policies so my "facts" could be slightly off but the gist should essentially be accurate. Also, I don't mean to imply that the NFL's steroid testing policies can't be improved upon (they can be) or that it's the best sport at testing for steroids (that would be the Olymics IMO).

1. The NFL has been testing for steroids since 1989 I believe. The MLB only started testing a few years ago. MLB only started testing because of intense public pressure. Otherwise, they probably still wouldn't be testing. At least that's my perception.

2. The NFL has always meted out decent punishment. I believe that a first offense has always been 4 games, or a quarter of the season. A second offense results in a full season suspension. On the other hand, MLB's initial steroid policy only called for treatment for a first time offender. That was later amended to a 10 day suspension. Finally, it was upgraded to a 50 day suspension. This changes were only enacted because of pressure from Congress, not because Donald Fehr and the union believed it was right.

3. Even though baseball is called America's pastime and has been around much longer than fotball, football is really now America's favorite sport. Possible reasons? Football has been ahead of baseball in terms of marketing, revenue sharing, a salary cap etc. Football has enjoyed relative labor peace since 1982. Meanwhile baseball has had multiple work stoppages and has had a World Series cancelled.

Neither baseball nor football currently tests blood samples. Neither has their steroid testing done by an independent agency, ala the Olymics. However, if one of the 2 sports were to incorporate blood testing or turn over their testing to an independent agency, who thinks it would actually be baseball that adopts these changes first? Not me.

The NFL has always had a plan. They are proactive, not reactive.

Part of the reason is that the NFL doesn't have a union that stonewalls everything just for the sake of it. NFLPA has realized that they need to work together and be proactive to deal with such issues.

Even if the NFL plan is just window dressing- they have won the PR battle. They at least give the appearance that they have it all under control.

Football is a bunch of 350 lb beasts beating the crap out of each other. There is poking in the eyes, discreet kicks to the groins, etc.... Barbaric behavior

Different game, different attitude, I guess.

Baseball, on the other hand, is "artists" applying their "craft".

The baseball establishment is totally nostalgic. And it isn't all bad. It is good to revere and celebrate your heritage.

They don't like their sacred cows (DiMaggio's 56, Gehrigs 2130, Ruths 714, etc) slaughtered by just anyone. You must show proper respect for the game and its history. Cal and Aaron have taken their rightful place in baseball history.

But, Bonds ? He doesn't measure up. He has cheated. He isn't respectful to the history of the game and those before him. We can't let him cheat his way to the record books.

[66-70-83-??]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15093345/

Yes it was.

But, I disagree with his opinion.

For example, he points out that steroids were illegal but it was Bud's fault for not testing for them.

First, if the players were breaking US law- how is that Buds fault ?

Second, no mention of MLBPA and their refusal to talk drug testing until they were dragged kicking and screaming into it.

You can blame alot of things on Bud/Owners in baseball history, but the blame for the steroid issue rests much more on the MLBPA's shoulders, imo.

[nadecir]

Here's some confusing new news on this story. The prosecutor is saying there are "significant inaccuracies" in the story that has been reported. Here's the URL:

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/6024278

[66-70-83-??]

Here's some confusing new news on this story. The prosecutor is saying there are "significant inaccuracies" in the story that has been reported. Here's the URL:

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/6024278

The plot thickens.............

Maybe they released the wrong names !

Maybe it wasn't Roger Clemens. Maybe it wasn't Miggy ? Or Brian.

Who knows what the "inaccuracies" in the story are.

I assume he means just the LA Times article ? And not the actual affadavit ?

[Woody Held]

Typical yellow journalism. They had half the story and made the rest up.

[2632]

Here's some confusing new news on this story. The prosecutor is saying there are "significant inaccuracies" in the story that has been reported. Here's the URL:

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/6024278

Wow. A glimmer of hope (at least, I'm choosing to interpret it as such).

Also, the point about Clemens having to pass Olympic standard tests for the WBC also applies to Miggy, and even more so since he was playing MLB games in April when Roger wasn't back til June.

[Moose Milligan]

Several posters have wondered why the NFL isn't scrutinized as much as MLB with regards to steroids.

I'll give my take on that. Please note that I haven't actually looked at any official steroids policies so my "facts" could be slightly off but the gist should essentially be accurate. Also, I don't mean to imply that the NFL's steroid testing policies can't be improved upon (they can be) or that it's the best sport at testing for steroids (that would be the Olymics IMO).

1. The NFL has been testing for steroids since 1989 I believe. The MLB only started testing a few years ago. MLB only started testing because of intense public pressure. Otherwise, they probably still wouldn't be testing. At least that's my perception.

2. The NFL has always meted out decent punishment. I believe that a first offense has always been 4 games, or a quarter of the season. A second offense results in a full season suspension. On the other hand, MLB's initial steroid policy only called for treatment for a first time offender. That was later amended to a 10 day suspension. Finally, it was upgraded to a 50 day suspension. This changes were only enacted because of pressure from Congress, not because Donald Fehr and the union believed it was right.

3. Even though baseball is called America's pastime and has been around much longer than fotball, football is really now America's favorite sport. Possible reasons? Football has been ahead of baseball in terms of marketing, revenue sharing, a salary cap etc. Football has enjoyed relative labor peace since 1982. Meanwhile baseball has had multiple work stoppages and has had a World Series cancelled.

Neither baseball nor football currently tests blood samples. Neither has their steroid testing done by an independent agency, ala the Olymics. However, if one of the 2 sports were to incorporate blood testing or turn over their testing to an independent agency, who thinks it would actually be baseball that adopts these changes first? Not me.

Baseballs records are more hallowed and cherished than footballs. One could even argue that baseballs history is richer and deeper than footballs. When you say 755, or 61, even the casual fan knows what that is. But no one knows what Emmit Smith's rushing total is or how many points Kareem scored.

So when some juiced up a-holes start approaching these records, we get defensive.

[now]

Speaking of libel/slander. This is from the Media Law Resource Center Lawsuit:

. . .The statement(s) alleged to be defamatory must also be a false statement of fact. That which is name-calling, hyperbole, or, however characterized, cannot be proven true or false, cannot be the subject of a libel or slander claim. . . .

It looks to me that if one of these guys is truly innocent- they could have a case.

Their reputations are harmed- check. It was published to many people- check. Obviously, if Grimsley is lying that would be reckless disregard for the truth (not to mention put his azz in a sling for lying to feds).

Even if they didn't win in the court of law- they would probably win in the court of public opinion for having the stones to go through with a suit to clear their name.........

As opposed to the finger wagging Raffy who threatened LOUDLY to sue Canseco. Of course, he didn't follow up on his threat.

Edit: I put one paragraph in the above discussion on slander/libel law in italics. That is because this is where it is a murky grey area. This is why we need lawyers to read this crap and translate for us. It seems to me this parargraph is all about individual lawyer/judge interpretation. But, what do I know ? I am not a lawyer.

Thanks for the excellent bit of legal research. This is exactly to the point I was thinking about. It seems pretty clear from this that the players would have a good case for libel. Of course I'm not a lawyer, either. But I hear there's a pretty good one close to the Orioles. :002_ssuprised:

As for the italics section (un-italics quote in section above), that seems to me simply to be distinguishing between an unprovable statement of opinion like we see all the time on this forum ("Gibbons sucks") and a provable statement of fact such as it appears Grimsley made ("Gibbons etc. used steroids").

I guess we'll have to stay tuned with the latest report from Fox.

[El Gordo]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15093345/

But I have to take exception to his remark about the pitching. The strike zone was not expanded during the 60's It conformed to the rule book dimensions more acurately than it does today. The mound was 15", the regulated height it had been for years. In the 20's it occasionally reached the height of 20" or more in some parks but was uniformly 15"s during the 60's. The strike zone was reduced and the mound lowered in '69 to increase hitting. That year, Bob Gibson and other greats of that era had about a one run increase to their ERA.

[blueberryale77]

The plot thickens.............

Maybe they released the wrong names !

Maybe it wasn't Roger Clemens. Maybe it wasn't Miggy ? Or Brian.

Who knows what the "inaccuracies" in the story are.

I assume he means just the LA Times article ? And not the actual affadavit ?

My guess... and this is completely a guess and a fairly hopeful one at that, is that the guys listed for anabolic steroids in the story are really the ones who are in there for the amphetamine conversation. It seems plausible since that was the part that was clearly about Orioles and Gibbons told a reporter on Wednesday that he thought that was what he was in the affidavit for.

On Wednesday, Gibbons said he had not seen a copy of the affidavit but admitted he had been told by his agent and other journalists only that his name was on the document. He also said he thought he was named as part of the group Grimsley referred to when discussing amphetamines.

source: http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/sports/15653367.htm