Bonds may Sue over steroid book

[Balta1701]

You know the saddest thing? This may be the only way there is ever a full and complete investigation into Bonds's steroid use, given how slow MLB/Selig were to act on it & the fact that no one named Bonds when they went to jail.

 

Barry Bonds' lawyer plans to sue the authors and publisher of a book alleging the outfielder used steroids, seeking to seize their profits from the book, the San Francisco Chronicle reported Thursday.

 

Bonds' attorney, Michael Rains, sent a letter to the agent for "Game of Shadows" authors Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams, both Chronicle reporters, informing them of his plans to sue the authors, publisher Gotham Books, the newspaper and Sports Illustrated, which published excerpts from the book earlier this month.

 

The book, released Thursday, claims Bonds used an array of performance-enhancing drugs, including steroids, human growth hormone and insulin, for at least five seasons beginning in 1998.

 

The newspaper reported that Rains will ask a San Francisco judge on Friday to issue a temporary restraining order forfeiting all profits from publication and distribution. Rains said he will file the suit under California's unfair competition law.

 

The letter does not describe the basis of the suit.

 

Williams told The Associated Press Thursday that the book will stand up to a court challenge.

 

"I don't know what the legal action they contemplate is," he said. "Gotham can speak to the legal issues but the facts in our book are true and they will stand up to scrutiny."

[whitesoxfan101]

Where is the liability suit? Oh wait, it doesn't exist because the book is true. Thanks for the confession Barry, and thanks for having an idiot legal team.

 

[Soxbadger]

Where is the liability suit?

 

They are filing a TRO (temporary restraining order) to try and prevent the sale of the book. They will argue that allowing the sale of the book will lead to irreperable harm to Bonds which no monetary award could make him whole again.

 

Im not sure why they are "idiots" for doing what every lawyer would do for their client, protect their interests. Even if they lose on the TRO, it does not mean they will lose should Bonds really take them to the mat. A TRO just says that one side has a substantial liklihood of winning, while not actually making a binding ruling.

 

Not to mention it specifically says that Bonds lawyers told them of an intent to sue, and then also filed the TRO.

 

It will be very hard for Bonds to win in the end, but he can make it extremely costly for the authors and the publisher.

[whitesoxfan101]

Where is the liability suit?

 

They are filing a TRO (temporary restraining order) to try and prevent the sale of the book. They will argue that allowing the sale of the book will lead to irreperable harm to Bonds which no monetary award could make him whole again.

 

Im not sure why they are "idiots" for doing what every lawyer would do for their client, protect their interests. Even if they lose on the TRO, it does not mean they will lose should Bonds really take them to the mat. A TRO just says that one side has a substantial liklihood of winning, while not actually making a binding ruling.

 

Not to mention it specifically says that Bonds lawyers told them of an intent to sue, and then also filed the TRO.

 

It will be very hard for Bonds to win in the end, but he can make it extremely costly for the authors and the publisher.

 

I heard they are trying to prevent the authors from receiving any book profits, they aren't trying to prevent the sale of the book itself (it's WAY too late for that, it's all out there now). It would be hard for Bonds to win, and I don't blame him for suing....but the fact he didn't sue for liability speaks volumes.

[Steff]

Didn't read the filing, but isn't the suit because they got ahold of and used sealed GJ testimony..?

[whitesoxfan101]

Didn't read the filing, but isn't the suit because they got ahold of and used sealed GJ testimony..?

 

Yes ma'am, that is correct.

[Soxbadger]

Im not exactly sure Steff.

 

Judging from the wording of the article, it seems that they are trying to use some specific Cali Statute about unfair competition.

 

Without knowing what that statute says or makes legal/illegal, its hard to tell what angle they are going for. Im sure that they have something up their sleeve though, probably had some one read the entire book and figure out what they can attack.

[Steff]

Yes ma'am, that is correct.

 

 

Does this fall under 1st amendment protection and if not, why isn't the g'ment raising hell? Who leaked the info? Who gave them the info?

[Steff]

Im not exactly sure Steff.

 

Judging from the wording of the article, it seems that they are trying to use some specific Cali Statute about unfair competition.

 

Without knowing what that statute says or makes legal/illegal, its hard to tell what angle they are going for. Im sure that they have something up their sleeve though, probably had some one read the entire book and figure out what they can attack.

 

 

Two parts to the suit perhaps?

 

Or the claim that illegal means of obtaining info can not be profited from?

[Soxbadger]

Now you have me interested, gimme like 5 minutes Ill see if I can figure out what statute they are using.

[Steff]

Now you have me interested, gimme like 5 minutes Ill see if I can figure out what statute they are using.

 

 

LOL.

[Soxbadger]

Here is the statute:

 

17200. Unfair competition; prohibited activities

 

 

 

As used in this chapter, unfair competition shall mean and include any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising and any act prohibited by Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17500) of Part 3 of Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code.

 

Here is a link to a bunch of case law, but it seems that this is a really broad statute.

UCL Info

 

My guess is that they are going to allege that the authors did something "illegal" which therefore would allow Bonds the relief of the restraining order. Because under the statute one of the choices is "injunctive relief".

 

Gonna be interesting what Bonds camp can dig up in terms of "illegal" because it seems that its very broadly defined by prior case law.

Edited March 24, 2006 by Soxbadger

[Steff]

 

 

 

 

[Kyyle23]

Just announced on ESPN news, the judge denied the TRO

[HuskyCaucasian]

Just announced on ESPN news, the judge denied the TRO

Score confirmes it as well

[Kyyle23]

Score confirmes it as well

 

Well if the Score confirmed it, it must be true

 

I keed I keed

[whitesoxfan101]

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2382588

 

Bonds' attorneys say the book's authors, publisher Gotham Books, the San Francisco Chronicle and Sports Illustrated, which published excerpts of the book, should be held liable for publishing "illegally obtained grand jury transcripts."

 

But Judge James Warren said free speech protections shielded the defendants from such accusations and that he thought Bonds' lawsuit had little chance of success.

 

Why did Barry's lawyers waste their time? Even a plebian like me knew that that judge said, free speech says this book is perfectly legal.

[Soxbadger]

First Amendment is not an absolute protection.

 

You cant print, write, or say anything, there are certain limitations.

 

As for why Barry's lawyers wasted their time:

 

1) Because Im sure they were paid substantially

 

2) Because as the lawyers for Bonds they have a duty to do what they can to help their client

 

3) Because they could make a good faith argument that the UCL made it so that if the journalists did something illegal that Bonds could get a TRO and damages.

 

I just dont understand why the lawyers would not try this. Seems like a no lose situation:

 

Scenario 1) They win at trial, the case most likely would be fast tracked for Appellate and then perhaps SC. They are looking at considerable legal fees, not to mention all the publicity of being Bonds lawyer.

 

Scenario 2) They lose at trial, they then have the decision to appeal, they also still receive their considerable legal fees.

 

I really dont know many people who would turn down thousands of dollars and all the recognition/publicity that would come with a case like this, should they prevail.

[Balta1701]

SB, the other side is that by filing and seemingly losing the lawsuit on the very day the book came out, it gave a ton of extra publicity to the book that it would not have had, and it gave the news media extra reason to remind everyone that "Hey that book is out today".

 

If their only goal was to protect Bonds, and they felt they didn't have a good shot at winning, the last thing they'd want to do is give everyone a reminder the day that the book comes out.

[whitesoxfan101]

First Amendment is not an absolute protection.

 

You cant print, write, or say anything, there are certain limitations.

 

As for why Barry's lawyers wasted their time:

 

1) Because Im sure they were paid substantially

 

2) Because as the lawyers for Bonds they have a duty to do what they can to help their client

 

3) Because they could make a good faith argument that the UCL made it so that if the journalists did something illegal that Bonds could get a TRO and damages.

 

I just dont understand why the lawyers would not try this. Seems like a no lose situation:

 

Scenario 1) They win at trial, the case most likely would be fast tracked for Appellate and then perhaps SC. They are looking at considerable legal fees, not to mention all the publicity of being Bonds lawyer.

 

Scenario 2) They lose at trial, they then have the decision to appeal, they also still receive their considerable legal fees.

 

I really dont know many people who would turn down thousands of dollars and all the recognition/publicity that would come with a case like this, should they prevail.

 

I was saying in general it's a waste of time since there is a better chance of a killer asteroid hitting earth tomorrow than them winning. In terms of the lawyers themselves, of course it's not a waste of time with legal fees how they are today .

Edited March 25, 2006 by whitesoxfan101

[JoeBatterz]

Bonds is an idiot.