Idiots Write About Sports

Answering a letter from a reader who wonders why Mark McGwire, Rafeal Palmiero and anyone else fingered by Jose Canseco in Juiced doesn’t sue the big, dumb jerk for libel, Bill Simmons writes:

I would think that any of these wrongly-accused players would be reacting like Harrison Ford in “The Fugitive” right now – risking their lives to clear their names. And yet none of them has done anything. Makes you wonder.

Well, it doesn’t make me wonder, but then again, I have a passing familiarity with our nation’s libel laws. I’m no legal expert, but I have held down a job in the print media for the past decade, so it’s in my best professional interest to at least know enough about libel to keep me out of trouble.

To wit: it is pretty hard for a public figure — defined by the Associated Press’ tutorial on libel as someone “who has assumed the role of special prominence in the affairs of society and occupies a position of persuasive power and influence” — to successfully win a libel suit. As established in Supreme Court precedent, public figures suing for libel have to prove actual malice — that someone either knowingly published a false statement or did so with a reckless disregard for the truth.

It would be somewhat difficult to prove that Canseco made the claims that he does in Juiced with malice, unless someone were to dig up a journal entry along the lines of “Dear Diary: Today I’m going to damage Mark McGwire’s reputation.” As for proving that Canseco’s allegations are false, well, how do you go about proving a negative? “Your honor, here’s a photo of me not taking steroids. I rest my case.”

Now, setting aside the fact that the McGwires and Palmieros of the world would face an uphill climb to prove malice, consider that any lawsuit keeps Canseco’s allegations in the headlines and, consequently, in the public eye. In other words, by trying to protect your reputation, you’re breathing new life into the accusations that damaged your reputation in the first place. And you’re doing this to win a multi-million dollar judgment from a guy who, according to some accounts, isn’t exactly flush with cash.

The question shouldn’t be, why aren’t these guys filing libel suits; the question is, why would they go through the trouble?

Like I said, I’m no lawyer. But it took me about five minutes to research this entry with the help of the University of Houston’s page on media libel and the very excellent Sports Law Blog. I also flipped through my dog-eared copy of The Associated Press Stylebook and Libel Manual, which is something that everyone who works in this business — even people writing 10,000-word columns on some Boston-affiliated sports team — should keep within arm’s length.

My point? When a discussions calls for arcane references to long-forgotten 90210 episodes, Bill Simmons is the go-to guy. And when it comes to matters of legal import, perhaps the Sports Guy should sit that one out.

Thank you. The same thought crossed my mind when I read that, and I couldn't believe that Simmons had no idea how libel suits work, and responded to the email without even bothering to take a cursory glance at the AP Stylebook.

He should also avoid writing about music, but that's another matter entirely.

"He should also avoid writing about music, but that's another matter entirely."

Oh yeah.

Good point. I've heard tons of people around here (Detroit) saying that if Pudge isn't suing the pants off of Canseco, it's because he's guilty as charged. As I'm not a law student and have a general, not technical knowledge of these things, I've had a heck of a time trying to tell them what you just said.

Post a comment