Ex-Sox Player Admits to Steroids!

[Texsox]

The publisher can be sued.

 

The Publisher would lose if they knew Canseco's allegations were false. That cannot be sued for publishing the allegations.

 

Example: Every newspaper in America published Clinton's quote "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" and it was later proved false. They were not sued for printing a lie.

 

Newspapers printed allegations that Cardinal Bernadin had sexual relations with a young man. Later the man admitted to making up the story. Again, the publisher cannot be sued.

[Steff]

The Publisher would lose if they knew Canseco's allegations were false. That cannot be sued for publishing the allegations.

 

Example: Every newspaper in America published Clinton's quote "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" and it was later proved false. They were not sued for printing a lie.

 

Newspapers printed allegations that Cardinal Bernadin had sexual relations with a young man. Later the man admitted to making up the story. Again, the publisher cannot be sued.

 

 

 

Anyone can be sued for anything. It's in a jury's hands to award damages.

[SoxFan562004]

Anyone can be sued for anything. It's in a jury's hands to award damages.

or in the judges hands to grant a Motion for Summary Judgment

[Texsox]

Anyone can be sued for anything. It's in a jury's hands to award damages.

LOL Ok Steff. and a jury could award damages because someone drives a red car. In the end, a law must be broken.

[SuperSteve]

LOL Ok Steff. and a jury could award damages because someone drives a red car. In the end, a law must be broken.

I believe she meant within reason. Obviously you knew that. Look at Don King sueing ESPN cause they said he was a "bad guy" (gotta be careful, don't want Don King to sue me ). People are going to be pretty pissed at Canseco, and I honestly can't wait to read his book just to see what it says. I dunno how much I will take as truth or as fiction, but I look forward to iit.

[Steff]

LOL Ok Steff. and a jury could award damages because someone drives a red car. In the end, a law must be broken.

 

 

 

No s*** Tex..

 

My point is that if a jury finds defimation or libel and claim the publisher had responsibility they can be awarded to pay damages.

[Steff]

I believe she meant within reason. Obviously you knew that.

 

 

Actually I really think he thought (or was hoping) I would find proper comparison to the red car analogy... :rolly

[Soxbadger]

Steff,

 

Thanks for the answer. I couldnt remember which way the case went, I thought it went against the publisher but I wasnt sure.

 

Now there still is this problem, which I decided to stop being lazy about and get a Westlaw case:

 

Further, where a public figure alleges defamation, he or she must establish some factual basis for the conclusional assertions that the defamatory statements were made with knowledge of their falsehood or a reckless disregard for their truth or falsity.

 

Krueger v. Lewis

342 Ill.App.3d 467, 276 Ill.Dec. 720

 

Citing, Rodriguez-Erdmann, 190 Ill.App.3d at 33, 137 Ill.Dec. 218, 545 N.E.2d 979

 

So, for any of them to beat Canseco in court, they will have to show that Canseco knew the statements to be untrue, or there was a reckless disregard.

 

These are not very easy standards, compared to regular defamation or slander cases involving non-public figures.

 

SB

[Steff]

Steff,

 

Thanks for the answer. I couldnt remember which way the case went, I thought it went against the publisher but I wasnt sure.

 

Now there still is this problem, which I decided to stop being lazy about and get a Westlaw case:

Krueger v. Lewis

342 Ill.App.3d 467, 276 Ill.Dec. 720

 

Citing,  Rodriguez-Erdmann, 190 Ill.App.3d at 33, 137 Ill.Dec. 218, 545 N.E.2d 979

 

So, for any of them to beat Canseco in court, they will have to show that Canseco knew the statements to be untrue, or there was a reckless disregard.

 

These are not very easy standards, compared to regular defamation or slander cases involving non-public figures.

 

 

 

 

It'll definitely be interesting to see which way, if anyone, goes. Do they just leave it alone and ignore it..? Do they defend their honor.? And if so.. how? It's like trusting the witness to a crime who just happened to be running from the scene of another crime. One thing... Jose has been pretty clear on his feelings towards MLB and some players.. I think proving malice would be the easiest part. He's obviously got a big mouth.

[Texsox]

Actually I really think he thought (or was hoping) I would find proper comparison to the red car analogy...  :rolly

 

Sorry, I said a law had to be broken and you said anything, I thought you meant anything.

[Steff]

Sorry, I said a law had to be broken and you said anything, I thought you meant anything.

 

 

Well.. last time I checked it wasn't against the law to not secure the lid of a coffee cup.. yet McDonald's paid dearly for that mistake.

 

Anyone can sue anyone for anything. To be able to sue, a crime is not in the criteria.

[SoxFan562004]

Well.. last time I checked it wasn't against the law to not secure the lid of a coffee cup.. yet McDonald's paid dearly for that mistake.

 

Anyone can sue anyone for anything. To be able to sue, a crime is not in the criteria.

of course it is, it's possibly negligence

[Steff]

of course it is, it's possibly negligence

 

 

You can not be arrested for negligence, unless it results in a crime.

[SoxFan562004]

You can not be arrested for negligence, unless it results in a crime.

right, it's a tort, that's why McDonald's had to pay the woman (possibly, I've never read the lawsuit)

[Steff]

right, it's a tort, that's why McDonald's had to pay the woman (possibly, I've never read the lawsuit)

 

 

Oh sorry. I thought you were referring to my second statement.

[thomsonmi]

Not to get too technical, but since I am a plaintiff's trial attorney...

 

In New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (U.S. 1964), the United States Supreme Court ruled that a public person may not successfully sue for libel unless the person can prove malice. Malice was defined as "with knowledge that it (the material in question) was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not."

 

This would be the standard applied to a lawsuit filed by Mark McGwire or any of the folks accused in Canseco's book.

[Steff]

Not to get too technical, but since I am a plaintiff's trial attorney...

 

In New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (U.S. 1964), the United States Supreme Court ruled that a public person may not successfully sue for libel unless the person can prove malice. Malice was defined as "with knowledge that it (the material in question) was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not."

 

This would be the standard applied to a lawsuit filed by Mark McGwire or any of the folks accused in Canseco's book.

 

 

 

"or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not"...

 

Doesn't that kind of negate the previous line...?

 

Unless I'm reading wrong.. one can sue if the info is false.. OR if the person presenting the information didn't care if it was false..?

 

Thanks thomsonmi.

[thomsonmi]

Besides the obvious you can sue for anything line, Canseco could defend himself by presenting evidence of why he thought it was true. In other words, a jury could find that the allegations are false but also find that Canseco did not act with reckless disregard for the truth. That's may be confusing but the jist is that if you have a legitimate reason for thinking your statements are true your protected in a libel suit.

 

It's a pretty tough standard actually.

[Soxbadger]

Thats not actually true.

 

Canseco's statement was:

 

I injected Mark.

 

Either he did or he did not.

 

If he did, then there is no slander, defamation, etc because truth is a defense. You can not be truthful and be slanderous.

 

If he did not, then there is no possible way to say that he did not make the statement with out knowing it was false, or with out a reckless disregard for the truth.

 

By injecting himself into the statement, he has helped and hurt himself. He has first destroyed one of the arguments that he could have made in defending a defamation case, that eventhough it may be false it was not done with malice, but at the same time made it substantially harder for potential plaintiff because the burden is on them, and they will have to prove that Canseco did not do the things that he claims to have done, or seen what he claims to have seen.

 

Also the burden of proof in a Civil case is a lower standard, perponderance of the evidence, but that means that any plaintiff will have to bring evidence to negate Canseco's statements.

 

This is what will prove to be very hard. As unless they can bring in eye witnesses who can account for almost every action that was taken in the clubhouses etc, it will still come down to:

 

Does the jury believe Canseco, or do they believe the plaintiff?

 

Also, since Mark is going to be trying to prove he did not use steriods, the defense will be able to bring other evidence to prove that he did use steriods. Since the trial is public, will Mark and other players really want to go down that road.

 

My feeling is that they will not.

 

SB

[SoxFan562004]

Mike Greenberg pointed out something important today on his morning show... that is the paper who is reporting all of this (is it the post or times?) does not have excerpts from the book, so there are no quotes. That is why McGwire's statement said he would wait to review the book.

[Steff]

Mike Greenberg pointed out something important today on his morning show... that is the paper who is reporting all of this (is it the post or times?) does not have excerpts from the book, so there are no quotes.  That is why McGwire's statement said he would wait to review the book.

 

 

 

The comments in the papers the past few days are quotes that Jose and the publisher released. What Mike said was that there are rumors of other players but since the have been no further comments released it's speculation as to who those others might be.

[SoxFan562004]

The comments in the papers the past few days are quotes that Jose and the publisher released. What Mike said was that there are rumors of other players but since the have been no further comments released it's speculation as to who those others might be.

Thanks for clearing that up... wasn't sure what is quoted and what's rumors at this point

[Steff]

Thanks for clearing that up... wasn't sure what is quoted and what's rumors at this point

 

 

I'm eager to read this book.. the rumors flying have been crazy!!

[Queen Prawn]

I actually cheered for the guy. He seemed pretty cool with the team. I'm not saying he's wrong, because he's wrong about a lot of things, but it wouldn't surprise me if all those players did do steroids.

 

When it was released that he was signed with the Sox, my mom called me at my then apartment and wondered if it was me who called in and said it sucked they signed him because it sounded like I did at the time (I was recovering from oral surgery - 4 wisdom teeth and the person sounded like they were on pain killers). I laughed and said that I didn't think he sucked, just wasn't sure how it would turn out. Turned out my mom and I really liked watching him play - surprised the hell out of us.

[Queen Prawn]

Well, I just checked our roster from 2001 - this book could blow the lid off of Royce Clayton's career!

 

My brother said Clayton was on anti-steriods.