Come on, seriously? Hasn't Barry proven he's a big enough idiot. He's going to try and sue Schilling for saying he took steroids. Well, it's been proven that he did, just not "knowingly" so I ask, WHERE IS THE DEFEMATION?!?
2007-08-16 17:12:33 · 18 answers · asked by Chanclito 2 in Sports ➔ Baseball
The elements of defamation are (1) causing someone harm by (2) publishing or disseminating a false statement against that person and (3) in the case of a public figure, doing so knowingly or maliciously.
Good luck trying to prove that Barry. Schilling could show (a) Barry's reputation already sucked and Schill's derogatory statements earlier this year caused no harm, (b) all the statements are true and (c) even if they caused harm and were false, Schill was acting in good faith and not maliciously which is the standard because Barry is a public figure.
2007-08-16 18:36:07 · answer #1 · answered by mattapan26 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Barry Bonds has tarnished the legacy of the record he allegedly broke. Until someone says that Barry Bonds did not do steroids (and not Barry Bonds), I will consider the record unbroken and Bonds a cheat. Hank Aaron didn't have to use drugs to set that record in 1974.
Barry should just suck it up, because if he does sue Schilling, Bonds will have some pretty tough questions to answer UNDER OATH. Does he really want to do that with the BALCO grand jury set to reconviene next month?
And an asterisk * should follow Bonds "record breaking" feat.
2007-08-16 18:45:18 · answer #2 · answered by stef_leppard 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think this is another one of those cases that will mysteriously disappear before it gets filed. To prove defamation, Bonds must prove first that those comments were a deliberate attempt to discredit him in some way, and he must also prove that they are not true. In other words, Bonds would have to prove that Schilling's statements faults. While they may have been an attempt to discredit Bonds, I would find it hard to believe that he could ever prove in a court of law that they were false statements. I think it's funny that the "innocent until proven guilty" crap that all the Bonds lovers out there keep spewing will end up being his undoing. .
2016-05-20 19:01:25 · answer #3 · answered by gertrude 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well technically he can do that because Barry has never tested positive for steroids and Schilling did say that he used it. I think this is Barry just putting all the marbles on the line. I mean if he is sueing people for saying that he did steroids I am actually more inclined to believe that he didnt use steroids because if it's proven he did use steroids he is gonna be in the some deep ****.
2007-08-16 17:45:22 · answer #4 · answered by Drew 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Greetings! I heard that story, but haven't read it. On the face of this headline, I would think that Bonds would not want to have anything at all to do with the steroids controversy.
For him to sue, Bonds will have to get on the stand and tell how he, Bonds was defamed.
This also would mean that Bonds will have to have to endure cross examination, with every statement Bond makes to go to court record, which will be sent back to the federal grand jury who is just waiting for a reason to indict Bonds.
Take care.
2007-08-16 17:39:14 · answer #5 · answered by TeacherGrant 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Well Bonds is a legend in his own mind and well above the normal laws so I'm sure that just because Shilling told the truth will not make Bonds reconsider and not sue. The grand jury statements from Bonds should be enough to make him shut up but not Barry.
2007-08-16 17:18:47 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
He is not and I'll predict he will not and I'll predict if he does, he will lose. Schilling has not made any statements, just quoted other people and then asked a question. Baroid is so lame - the drugs have cooked his brain - it is an act. He threatened to sue someone else earlier and backed off - mainly because he would then be under oath himself and have to answer the questions - and he will never do that because
HE IS A CHEATER and LIAR
2007-08-16 18:42:48 · answer #7 · answered by vegasrob89118 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It would be foolish of Bonds to go through with the suit - Schilling isn't the kind of guy who will back down from a threat, and it would be unwise of Bonds to allow a trial that would feature testimony about his PED use.
2007-08-16 17:48:21 · answer #8 · answered by JerH1 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The only testimony Schilling can ever give is the fact he himself took steroids. And that's that.
2007-08-16 20:19:37 · answer #9 · answered by jasonpickles 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Bonds* better watch out, Schilling is much smarter and may trap Bonds* into having the testimony released that will prove that Bonds* took the steroids. (As if we really need that to know)
2007-08-16 18:58:51 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋