And it looks like the first MF'er is going to be that noted Wizard of Words, the current President of the "Why Didn't Barry Sue? - Why Didn't Barry Sue?" Club, none other than Curt Schilling.
These folks have the same simplistic logic and magpie-like talking points as the late Johnnie Cochran used to sway a jury in favor of Orenthal James (O.J.) Simpson, many years back.
"If glove doesn't fit, you must acquit." becomes "If Barry didn't sue, it must be true." Both quotes succeed in creating a diversion in the minds and the ears of the listening audience. And we like our logic to be simple don't we now? Otherwise, we might have to go to Bob Costas and Mike Lupica to explain stuff to us, and we don't want that.
In the Simpson case, it was the "mountain of evidence" pointing to his guilt. In the Bonds case, it is ANY PIECE of evidence or logical train of thought that would explain a scenario different than that which the listener would be inclined to believe about Bonds.
And now it appears that very shortly, the "Why Didn't he Sue?" crowd will go to wherever the "Hank Aaron doesn't approve" crowd is hanging out these days.
The good folks at Steroid Nation are breaking details of this story (along with a more restrained tone then they've exhibited in the past against one Barry Lamar Bonds):
http://grg51.typepad.com/steroid_nation/2007/08/barry-bonds-to-.html
08/14/2007
Barry Bonds wants to sue you, but settles on targeting Curt Schilling
Alleged (note 'alleged') roid-monger Barry Bonds, the recent career home run king, announced that he contracted with two Bay-area lawyers to track down miscreants who would besmirch his good name. The accused juicer threatens to sue Curt Schilling or anyone making false statements about him or his large head.
A local Bay-area TV station(CBS5) first carried the story:
Now that Barry Bonds has passed Henry Aaron to become baseball's all-time home run king, he's threatening to sue anyone who makes false or misleading statements about him, two Bay Area attorneys said Monday.
Attorneys John Burris of Oakland and Todd Schneider of San Francisco said Bonds has retained them "in connection with legal issues arising from the myriad of false statements attributed to him by players, the media and others."
The attorneys, who are veteran civil rights litigators, said they believe "such statements are defamatory and have legal consequences."
I GUESS THIS MUST BE WHAT BONDS MEANT WHEN HE SAID, MY DAY WILL COME. These lawyers are going to busy for quite some time, I hope they're getting paid by the hour. But now that Bonds has the all-time HR record, I guess he can spend his money however he wants to.
Interesting to note that in the Steroid Nation commentary was this paragraph:
"According to The San Jose News, Bonds' old attorney, -- Michael Rains (maybe feeling some jealousy?) Note: words in parenthesis added by Steroid Nation
I posted this comment on their site, If they respond I'll let you know:
Explain to me why Rains would feel any jealousy that Bonds retained civil rights lawyers. Rains is a criminal defense lawyer, whose plate is rather full I'm sure.
The others are civil rights attorneys.
Attorneys specialize in narrow areas of the law. Rains may feel he has little or no competence in this arena.
Are you sure it's not some jealousy or envy or bias that you are showing?
I'M GUESSING THE ANSWER IS YES, BUT THE ANSWER (IF ANY) POSTED WILL BE SOME SORT OF J.K. LINE OF BULL. A TACTIC DISGUISED AS A J.K. IS A TACTIC NONETHELESS.
2 comments:
Hey, Steroid Nation here. What is 'JK line of bull'?
As I said in the blog, I can't even remember what neurons shot off when I wrote that line. Probably not the greatest of comments...maybe I should remove.
I do think it is unusual for one attorney to give away the game plan of another attorney.
It is an interesting comment of yours that perhaps this is what Bonds meant by 'his time will come'.
However, Bonds needs to be careful about this. The burden of proving slander or libel or defamation appears to be great with a public figure.
It would be fascinating to see Bonds give public sworn testimony on his PED use. It would also be interesting to see his accusors do same.
We fear most that neither side will be able to give testimony in public. That would be a shame.
And yes, we are envious of that Bonds' home run swing.
thanks man
Sorry, hanging out with the young people too much and adopting their IM lexicon...JK = Just Kidding.
I'm not sure we know their game plan as much as that they are warming up in the bullpen ready to take the field.
I often wondered why he wasn't more aggressive in this regard, as Armstrong and Clemens have been in the past, and thought "well, maybe he's waiting until he breaks (back then it was if) the record."
I remember thinking that it didn't have much of a chance of happening, but different strokes...I suppose.
He and his attorneys may just go after the adulterer comments and leave anything remotely close to PED comments alone, who knows?
He's given sworn testimony on his PED use in the past (leaked grand jury testimony), his accusers, specifically Schilling, have no direct knowledge of PED use by Barry, that I'm aware of, or that they've cited.
I'm not sure if in a libel case, they would be allowed to call other witnesses (such as Greg Anderson) to rebut Barrys denial or if the burden lies soley on how they arrived at the substance of their comments given what was "known" at the time.
It would be seem to be hard for Schilling to defend his comments after he was almost universally condemned for being erroneous and out of line in making them. And he did do a quick "moon-walk" bactrack afterwards. Not sure how much that would play in to proving subsequent damage to Bonds.
It could just be Barry in effect drawing a line in the sand and saying to his detractors, "From now on, watch what you say." And we don't waste a minute of court time on it.
Although yes, I would watch it.
Post a Comment