Idiots Write About Sports

The minute word came out that Bo Jackson filed a defamation suit against an Ontario, California, newspaper that ran an article alleging he had used steroids, I didn’t figure it would take long for some high-profile, blowhard columnist to make an erroneous comparison between Jackson and other athletes accussed of sterioid use who didn’t pursue libel suits.

I don’t how high-profile Dan Wetzel is, but he’s certainly a blowhard. Here’s his all-too-predictable take on the matter:

One of the most frustrating things about the entire steroid scandal era is the complete non-believability of all these accused athletes, many of whom we actually would like to believe. Jose Canseco named a whole slew of guys in his book and to a man they called him names and denied it.

But not one of them sued for defamation. Not one of them went after the accuser. Not one of them stood up like Bo Jackson.

Well, maybe that’s because their situation isn’t exactly the same as Bo Jackson’s.

We’ve already discussed in this space the last time a sports columnist decided to offer the benefit of their non-existent legal experience as to why it is very difficult for public figures to win a libel suit. Here’s the short synopsis for those of you who don’t feel like clicking on links: unlike regular folk who just have to prove negligence, public figures like professional athletes need to show that there was actual malice — that someone knowningly published false information or did so with reckless disregard for the truth. The trouble with a he said/she said allegation like steroid abuse is that it’s your word against someone else’s; it’s well nigh-impossible to prove that you didn’t do something.

The Inland Valley Daily Bulletin story at the heart of the case contains a quote from dietary expert Ellen Coleman claiming that Jackson lost his hip due to anabolic steroid abuse. Only one problem with that — Coleman swears she never said any such thing. Here’s a USA Today story to explain:

Jackson said he found the story from the newspaper online, and at least one person called him about it. [Jackson attorney Dan] Biederman said he then contacted Coleman, who denied making any statements about Jackson. She provided the lawyer with a videotape of her speech at a Riverside, Calif., sports forum to back up her claim.

“At no time during my speech or while speaking individually to [reporter] Jim Mohr did I use or mention the name Bo Jackson,” Coleman said in a signed affidavit.

So you not only have an allegation based on a quote the speaker says she never uttered, you have videotaped evidence of her not making that quote.

I’m no legal expert, but that sounds like it wouldn’t take much for Jackson’s legal team to prove reckless disregard for the truth. (The newspaper, in question, seems to agree: it retracted the story and apologized.)

To answer Wetzel’s idiotic question, then, the reason some athletes might not have followed Bo Jackson’s lead by filing a lawsuit is that all they have to back up their claim is their word; Bo Jackson has his word, a videotape, and an signed affidavit to back him up. Something tells me that holds a little bit more sway in a court of law.

So why should it bother us that Dan Wetzel doesn’t know what’s he talking about and won’t let that little fact stop him from running his mouth? He’s a peon in the larger scheme of things, and his willingness to speak authoritatively on subjects where he’s clearly ignorant reflects poorly on him and his employer. It’s no skin off our collective noses, right?

Well, maybe not. But I think it should matter. Because if the best things a writer can do are to challenge the way you think about things, to put the lie to convention wisdom, or even educate you on something you didn’t know about coming into the article, the worst thing a writer can do is perpetuate and even propagate ignorance.

Take a look at the responses to Wetzel’s column (about halfway down the page). Yes, there’s a letter there from an attorney who tries to point out the folly of libel suits (which receives no reaction from Wetzel), but mostly, it’s an amen-chorus of readers who share Wetzel’s world view.

I read your article to my 10 and 8 year-old sons (who love sports) and they exactly asked ‘why don’t those others accused of steroid use do the same as Bo’ ?

There’s a joke that could be made here about Dan Wetzel having the same legal expertise as an eight-year-old, but I’m not going to make it. Instead, I can only lament the missed opportunity. Wetzel had a chance to enligten his readers, and he went for the cheap, easy, and not-at-all accurate analysis instead. As a result, readers who may not know the ins-and-outs of libel law came away from his column just as misinformed on the issues as they were when they arrived.

As far as journalistic misdeeds go, that’s not as bad as basing an allegation on a quote that never got uttered. But if you ask me, it’s not that much better, either.

Post a comment