December 29, 2007
Legal Hardball
Some have suggested Roger Clemens bring a law suit against Brian McNamee, but the trainer's legal team appears to be the ones going on the offensive:
In particular, Ward and Emery pointed Friday to a Mike Wallace interview with Clemens that is scheduled to appear on the Jan. 6 broadcast of "60 Minutes," on CBS.
"If Roger Clemens continues to play fast and loose with the truth on '60 Minutes' and he continues to call Brian McNamee a liar then we will proceed with a defamation suit," Emery said in a telephone interview. "It is one of the only avenues Brian has to defend himself against the claims that he lied."
It would be nice to see someone testify about steroid use in open court under oath.
Posted by David Pinto at
08:20 AM
|
Cheating
|
TrackBack (0)
to win any of these suits, you have to prove damages - what damage has Clemens suffered?
and Clemeans is a public figure, so his standard is even higher - he musr prove recklessness.
impossible to do - or the National Enquirer would nt exist.
If McNamee sues the Needle Rocket all hell will break loose. The number of Yanks, players and execs, to face a Bondsian dilemma would be high. Bring it on...
rmt-
For Clemens to win a lawsuit he would not have to "prove damages." He would have to prove he was libeled. A court could find he was libeled and award him no damages. But no libel, no damages in any case.
http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html
the elements of a cause of action for defamation include:
A false and defamatory statement concerning another; The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (that is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement); If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and Damage to the plaintiff.
Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth.
...defamation cases tend to be difficult to win, and damage awards tend to be small
