Bill Madden: I knew that AROD was using Steroids the whole time he was with the Yankees

[Why Not?]

Hearing something whether its on or off the record is also very different than having proof. You can't know something off the record.

Sure you can.

A reporter might have concrete evidence, provided to him/her by someone who insists that the information is off the record. Or it might be as simple as a collection of evidence over a period of time. Keep in mind we're not talking about proving something in court.

An example......many moons ago, I covered high school sports for a newspaper. While investigating some possibly illegal transfers, I was shown information that absolutely proved that 7 players for one high school basketball team all "lived" in the same efficiency apartment. I KNEW they were cheating and this was proof. But my source didn't want to give the info unless it was off the record, so it didn't make the paper.

[weams]

Sure you can.

A reporter might have concrete evidence, provided to him/her by someone who insists that the information is off the record. Or it might be as simple as a collection of evidence over a period of time. Keep in mind we're not talking about proving something in court.

An example......many moons ago, I covered high school sports for a newspaper. While investigating some possibly illegal transfers, I was shown information that absolutely proved that 7 players for one high school basketball team all "lived" in the same efficiency apartment. I KNEW they were cheating and this was proof. But my source didn't want to give the info unless it was off the record, so it didn't make the paper.

A very good example.

[MurphDogg]

Sure you can.

A reporter might have concrete evidence, provided to him/her by someone who insists that the information is off the record. Or it might be as simple as a collection of evidence over a period of time. Keep in mind we're not talking about proving something in court.

An example......many moons ago, I covered high school sports for a newspaper. While investigating some possibly illegal transfers, I was shown information that absolutely proved that 7 players for one high school basketball team all "lived" in the same efficiency apartment. I KNEW they were cheating and this was proof. But my source didn't want to give the info unless it was off the record, so it didn't make the paper.

So you had proof but didn't want to put it in the paper. Madden says he had no proof.

[Why Not?]

So you had proof but didn't want to put it in the paper. Madden says he had no proof.

No, I couldn't put it in the paper. Believe me, I wanted to. But I wasn't able to confirm the info on the record.

"Proof" is a vague concept. Again, we're not talking about a legal scenario. A collection of circumstantial evidence could lead someone to 100% know something is fact, yet that information might not be considered proof.

[weams]

So you had proof but didn't want to put it in the paper. Madden says he had no proof.

From how I heard him talk about it was not parsing it quite that way.

[Outlander]

That is a good question, but I suspect that the answer is, "No," or at least, "Not necessarily."

If that were the case (that they would have to prove malice in order to successfully sue the defendant), then a reporter can be reckless, irresponsible, and damaging to one's reputation, but could always absolve himself of any civil/legal damages by falling back on, "Hey, I wasn't intending on hurting the guy."

Yes' but isn't that what pretty much happens? Isn't that how tabloids work? And proving someone wrote something that they knew was untrue, wouldn't that be malice? Isn't frobby a lawyer? Sorry if I'm mistaking him for another poster. I know there are lawyers here.

[OFFNY]

And wouldn't that be only half the battle. Wouldn't he have to prove malice as well?

That is a good question, but I suspect that the answer is, "No," or at least, "Not necessarily."

If that were the case (that they would have to prove malice in order to successfully sue the defendant), then a reporter can be reckless, irresponsible, and damaging to one's reputation, but could always absolve himself of any civil/legal damages by falling back on, "Hey, I wasn't intending on hurting the guy."

Yes' but isn't that what pretty much happens? Isn't that how tabloids work? And proving someone wrote something that they knew was untrue, wouldn't that be malice? Isn't frobby a lawyer? Sorry if I'm mistaking him for another poster. I know there are lawyers here.

Yes, there are lawyers here.

I am not one of them.

However, as a poster, I do have the right to give my rats ass of an opinion on a subject, even if it cannot be authenticated and/or verified by a professional in the field that I am commenting in.

You asked a question, I answered. Quoting someone makes it clear that you are specifically talking to that person, but it does not necessarily preclude anyone else from commenting on your question.

[Outlander]

Yes, there are lawyers here.

I am not one of them.

However, as a poster, I do have the right to give my rats ass of an opinion on a subject, even if it cannot be authenticated and/or verified by a professional in the field that I am commenting in.

You asked a question, I answered. Quoting someone makes it clear that you are specifically talking to that person, but it does not necessarily preclude anyone else from commenting on your question.

Whoa. My post has definitely been misunderstood. I apologize if it came out wrong. I was not attacking your response at all. I am appreciative of it in fact. I was just mentioning lawyers in a way to say...hmm, aren't there lawyers here, maybe they can clear up our discussion, since neither of us knew for sure how it worked. Again, I meant my words to read friendly, not attacking or demeaning in any way.

[OFFNY]

Whoa. My post has definitely been misunderstood. I apologize if it came out wrong. I was not attacking your response at all. I am appreciative of it in fact. I was just mentioning lawyers in a way to say...hmm, aren't there lawyers here, maybe they can clear up our discussion, since neither of us knew for sure how it worked. Again, I meant my words to read friendly, not attacking or demeaning in any way.

OK, not a problem.

I'm sorry if I came across strongly, also.

I tend to be oversensitive.

Have a greenie.

[Outlander]

The consecutive questions does make it sound a little aggressive as I re read my post.

[Outlander]

OK, not a problem.

I'm sorry if I came across strongly, also.

I tend to be oversensitive.

Have a greenie.

Cool, and thanks.

[BohKnowsBmore]

Here is the true insanity of his logic. He said this, and I'm paraphrasing. He wouldn't vote for piazza now due to strong suspicion. However, if it was his last year on the ballot, and still had a chance to get in, he would vote him in. He doesn't want to be the guy to keep him out of the hall on suspicion. He explained that by suggesting this.... If ten years pass, and still no scandal ( which he then compared to arod. He thought that arod only used those three times in Texas. We didn't know anything else. Then last year, we find out so much more) then he can accept him in. That is basically his logic. Seems insane?

I kind of get it. If after ten years nothing comes out, then his accomplishments speak for themselves and he shouldnt keep him out on suspension. If he has that strong of suspicion, why say yes now when you CAN wait longer? I'm not saying I agree with him, but the logic isn't terrible here.

[Groundhog]

Lawyer here, but this doesn't constitute legal advice or a lawyer/client relationship, etc.

To prove defamation against a public figure, you need actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth. Proving defamation against a public figure requires a higher standard of proof than against a private individual.

[OFFNY]

Lawyer here, but this doesn't constitute legal advice or a lawyer/client relationship, etc.

To prove defamation against a public figure, you need actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth. Proving defamation against a public figure requires a higher standard of proof than against a private individual.

Thanks.

Cam it be either (malice or reckless disregard for the truth), or does it necessarily have to be both ???

Your statement says "or," but I just wanted to make sure, anyway.

[Groundhog]

Thanks.

Cam it be either (malice or reckless disregard for the truth), or does it necessarily have to be both ???

Your statement says "or," but I just wanted to make sure, anyway.

Getting a bit technical into the common law definition, reckless disregard/(sometimes indifference) for the truth is a lower way to meet the element of actual malice; to meet it you'd need to prove either actual malice on the part of the alleged defamer OR that the alleged defamer recklessly disregarded the truth. It's tough to prove what is in people's minds so the recklessness can substitute.

Not your lawyer, nor legal advice, etc etc.