I am asserting that I do not think (at all) that she is making up sources. Do you?
Do you think she can be sued just because she doesn't name the source? You do know that truth is a defense? Even if the sources are anonymous, she is protected as long as the assertations are proven true. That is why it is so important to note that the famously aggrieved parties Clemens and Bonds have not sued; they know they themselves are lying.
MLB is a business. It's about money. It's about making it there and staying there to be a part of the business. "Slump Insurance" sounds very plausable to me. I'd rather not have known about it because I'm supposed to be a fan of the game.
Alex has been exposed. The only ones who are really hurt by any of this are the ones who think the game is anything more than a business. Don't be fooled.
Alex has been exposed. The only ones who are really hurt by any of this are the ones who think the game is anything more than a business. Don't be fooled.
I don't know if she is making up sources. If she does have sources (more than likely she does) then why not name them?
Yes she can be sued and I already explained what would happen. She would get a subpoena to court and ordered to reveal her sources. She would not reveal them and then be held in contempt and have to go to jail. After that, all of Rodriguez's dirty little secrets would come out in court.
Bonds and Clemens have not sued because it can be proven they are guilty and there are people willing to testify against them. Please note, I'm not talking about Rodriguez's steroid allegations. I'm talking about the new allegations regarding pitch tipping which she refuses to identify her sources. If it's not true he could sue her for libel.
Do you agree with me and if you don't why not?
I said "most" writers are trying to make a name for themselves and "SOME" are willing to bend the rules. How can you not agree with this?
Should I pull up all the instances of dudes that plagiarize like Jason Blair for instance or the people that refuse to cite their sources and then have to go to jail?
Listen Johnny Mac, I know a little about this topic and you'll have to trust me on that.
Then do you agree if he took her to court and sued her for libel she'd be ordered to reveal her sources regarding the pitch tipping?
When you make allegations in a public forum against a high-profile citizen in America you have the responsibility to provide credible information. If you damage their career and cost them money with shaky evidence you can be sued. As a writer you'd better be responsible in your research and reporting.
You are confusing a criminal prosecution and a civil lawsuit. No one is going to jail like Greg Anderson in the Bonds case.
If A-Rod sued, it would be a civil suit for libel. A-Rod would be required to prove that the writer intentionally lied in print. That would be hard to do, unless she actually did it, and then still it would be very hard. The writer would have to prove nothing, and could actually mount a defense of truth by herself subpoenaing the sources who told her what she wrote in the book.
Yes you are right I was focused on criminal for some reason. That said, she would have to reveal sources to mount that said defense and if she didn't provide the sources she'd most likely lose.
It would be on him to prove it of course but all he would have to show is the libel did in fact cause damage to his career and once he did that then she'd have to defend herself. I'd find it awful hard to defend the allegations unless she revealed her sources.
If she could not prove the allegations of pitch tipping and did not reveal a source how would a jury not think she intentionally lied in print?
He, for obvious reasons, would be risking a lot to go to court though.
Well, I don't trust you, because you make bald assertations and then don't back them up.
I refuse to believe that "most" writers are bending the rules to get famous, as you have stated. And I specifically refuse to believe that Selena Roberts is doing it.
What you want to do is keep narrowing the ground you are defending. Just admit that you overstated your point.
I did not say most writers bend the rules. Please reread the post for yourself but I'll provide the line for you again.
I said "most" writers are trying to make a name for themselves and "SOME" are willing to bend the rules
That statment is not overstated at all and absolutely true. I don't know if she is trying to bend the rules or not but not revealing your source could possibly get you in trouble. You don't have to trust me at all but I've worked with journalists for the last 7 years and have learned just a little.
Again, do you not agree he could sue her in a civil lawsuit if she does not reveal her sources?
Even if the writer lied about this (and what would be her motivation?), what would A-Rod's damages be?
And again, she would not have to prove anything. She is the defendant. A-Rod would carry the burden of proof.
And (this is the big one), if A-Rod filed a civil suit, he would open himself up to a deposition taken by the defendant's lawyers, while he was under oath. Do you really think he wants to answer a bunch of questions under oath about his reputation for truthfulness?
JohnnyMac, we're both saying the same thing here. I believe (I don't know this for certain of course and it's not the point) if she is lying then her motivation is to sell books and make a name for herself at SI and the world of journalism.
He could possibly claim damages from loss of endorsements, mental anguish or possibly not getting voted into the Hall of Fame (I'm just throwing these out there of course but I'm not a lawyer).
You're right, she would not have to prove anything however I think he could quite easily prove he did not tip pitches and since it's in the book that he did that would be very easy to prove. At that point if she has nothing in response then the jury will most likely rule in his favor.
He would not want to go to court. I said this about 3 posts ago.
Sure he could sue her. But could he win?
He would have to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that she intentionally lied in print about the whole thing. How is he going to do that? And he has to do that even before she calls her first witness, and puts on her defense.
When you assume "say he didn't do that," and then ask the question, you are assuming he is innocent, and then asking why can't he win? You can't have it both ways.
Honestly, who cares anymore. AROD used steroids, AROD tipped pitches, AROD lied, AROD sleeps with monkeys, AROD was behind 9-11, AROD is this , AROD is that.
Can we just watch baseball games without it turning into Entertainment Tonight?
Do people know what types of drugs athletes used in the decades before steroids? I heard Darryl Strawberry talking about his days with the Mets where he would party all night and be unable to move the next morning. he would pop some drugs before game time and he was super alert and the balls looked like beach balls. If we find out that Mantle or Maris took greenies should we take their records away as well.
Lets just watch the damn games and stop acting like a bunch of chicks watching TMZ.
Can we just watch baseball games without it turning into Entertainment Tonight?
Do people know what types of drugs athletes used in the decades before steroids? I heard Darryl Strawberry talking about his days with the Mets where he would party all night and be unable to move the next morning. he would pop some drugs before game time and he was super alert and the balls looked like beach balls. If we find out that Mantle or Maris took greenies should we take their records away as well.
Lets just watch the damn games and stop acting like a bunch of chicks watching TMZ.
Yeah, you're right. I guess the only way he could do it is have all the tape from every game he played in Texas introduced as evidence.
I'm not assuming he's innocent because for all intents and purposes he's probably guilty but what I hate is a guy being put on the defense by a journalist that is not responsible enough to provide information on why she's making the initial allegations.
The only reprocussion for him is a lawsuit. Could he prove his innocence? Hell, I don't know but if she didn't provide any proof in her defense then I'd tend to believe him over her if I was a juror.
