Will the ball players in the Mitchell report have an avenue to defend themselves?

[Squatch]

It seems to me that Mitchell, a one-man wrecking crew, composed his report and named/accused quite a few ball players of illegal steroid use and those so named have very little recourse other than press conferences/laying low to clear their impugned characters.

In normal public circles, widespread accusations like that will be dismissed as libel, in which case the aggrieved could seek relief through the courts.

Now, while I could normally not give two shits about baseball, this whole debacle has piqued my curiosity somewhat (but not much). This whole "investigation" seems so McCarthy-like.

[RB TexLa]

1. Any punishment comes from the commissioner, and that office hasn't issued any punishments so there

is nothing to defend against.

[Squatch]

3. If that happens in the future is irrelevant to my OP.

[RB TexLa]

4. There have been no fines or suspensions, there isn't anything for them to defend themselves against

I'd say that's relevant.

[Squatch]

5. Fines, suspensions, firings, lashings, etc are the RESULT of accusation

Prior to those things possibly occuring and in order to prevent them from happening, citizens are normally entitled to DEFEND themselves in the face of accusations. So, you're "there's nothing to defend themselves against" is incorrect.

[Marrah_G]

10. Even if there are no punishments there will be a backlash against their careers

It does seem a little McCarthy like.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

12. i would disagree...

I have no dog in this hunt as professional sports aren't really my thing...but having your name dragged through this is reason enough to want to mount a defense. Even if no actual charges/penalties/fines/sentences ever come from it is not the issue. Having the government of the US through one of its representatives accuse you of being, for lack of a better term, cheating scumbag without recourse or defense is despicable. Some of the people might be wrongly caught up in this and defense of one's good name should be provided for.

sP

[MadHound]

2. The yammering heads on ESPN mentioned that the players could bring slander lawsuits

But doubted that would happen, since the bar for proving slander is so high.

[Red Zelda]

7. Never confuse ESPN with journalism

[sendero]

8. And that .

.... truth is an absolute defense against slander.

[ProfessorGAC]

They'd Have To Prove Malice, Wouldn't They?

It's not slander or libel unless it was done with malice and the report writers knew it to be untrue.

So, that seems extraordinarily unlikely.
The Professor

[Red Zelda]

6. Dear baseball:

Fuck you and your bloated, overpaid "workforce."

[sendero]

9. Don't forget Football and Basketball.

... because I ASSURE you, steroid use is rampant in those sports as well.

[Squatch]

11. And even in sports that don't pay millions:

Marion Jones

[Johonny]

24. overpaid?

The actual percentage of revenue spent on baseball players salaries has gone down for the last 10 years! Compared to other entertainment performers, they are not overpaid at all. Now maybe you hate any worker enjoying the profits produced by their work.

[annabanana]

13. Sorry sports fans.

I just don't really care.

[Squatch]

14. And yet, here you are...

:shrug:

[ProfessorGAC]

15. Unbrilliant

Then why post?
The Professor

[IndianaJones]

16. Some of the names in the report are based on secondhand conversations.

This report is a joke.

[KharmaTrain]

17. Defend Against What?

He didn't specify any action against players or specifically said that a player used steroids...if you read his report the names cited are from documents he obtained as part of his investigation. Can and will people tie the two together...probably...but then, the evidence is there for you to read. If there's a dispute, it's with the documents, not with Mitchell.

Baseball is a private industry...not a public trust (despite its trust-exempt status...which should be removed) and the league sets the conditions of their employ, just like other companies do. If there were no specific laws against steroid use or that there was no direct evidence of "jucing", the players have a union that will take up their case (and be assured there's no union that stands up for players more than the Players Union). The bottom line is the Balco trial showed not only was there a problem, but there were illegal acts that went on...the Union will have problems in defending those who broke the law.

Personally, baseball's hands aren't clean on this mess. I'm convinced the league knew there was something going on and looked the other way. A lot of the "jucing" happened in the wake of the '94-'95 strike...baseball needed to "win" back the fans and home runs brought them back and I don't think Bud Selig was bitching too much when that was happening. A pox on all their houses.

Lastly, being from Chicago and I know Sosa's name wasn't on this list, but it's been long reported that he was one of the bigger "juicers"...and his massive home run totals were proof. While that may be the case, the bottom line was the Cubbies never really benefitted from those homers...many were one-run shots or when the game was already decided. Bonds sure didn't take home any World Series rings from his juicing either.

Be assured if a player is falsely accused they won't sit still. Most of them not only have the money, but also lawyers and agents who won't hesitate to sue.

[CPschem]

18. They had a chance to defend themselves

Each player named was invited to speak personally with Mitchell prior to the report being published. I think all declined except for 1. Eleven of the players named have admitted buying/using steroids and the other players (minus Roger Clemend) have declined to comment one eway or another.

[FredScuttle]

19. Hmmm,....where have I heard that before

"Talk to the committee and you won't be in any trouble. Just clear up any confusion...what's the big deal?"

[flvegan]

20. If they players are wise, they'll simply suggest folks look at their past (passed) urine tests.

I don't see them having to "defend" against anything, and it would be VERY unwise to bring any sort of suit to clear names.

[Nye Bevan]

21. If any of the players named do *not* sue for libel

I would take that as an implicit admission that the allegations in the report are true. These people are millionaires and can afford the best lawyers; you would think that if they were innocent they would be eager to do everything they can to get their good names back.

[FredScuttle]

22. Here's where the named players will be hurt

Endorsements
Commercials
Public Appearances (card shows, promotional events, etc.)
Charity support

If the Mitchell Report was just a circle-jerk exercise by MLB to cast aspersions on a bunch of players without following through with evidence and testimony to support the accusations, then the players named do have a legitimate grievance.

[Bitwit1234]

23. What I can't understand is this

Some of the ball players took steroids before they were illegal. While unethical, what can they do. If they took steroids after they were illegal steps should be taken to address it. So they should tell which did and which didn't and then go from there.

[EFerrari]

25. Not to mention, he ignored upper management altogether.

He's pretending there is widespread use of steroids but management and ownership didn't know, participate or encourage it. What a huge crock.