Baseball Musings
Baseball Musings
May 05, 2008
No Evidence

Sports Law Blog notes that McNamee's legal team can't use much of Roger Clemens's alleged affairs as evidence. In that case, it seems these leaks are meant to embarrass Roger into dropping the suit.


Posted by David Pinto at 11:10 AM | Cheating | TrackBack (0)
Comments

Indeed, but they will continue until he folds. Given that his earning power has decreased mightily since playing days I wonder when the wife takes half and leaves her cheater behind.

Posted by: abe at May 5, 2008 11:33 AM

I think it misunderstands the way the evidence would be used. While there may be some impeachment value if they can find instances of Clemens having lied about an affair, the way the affair would be used is to limit damages from a defamement suit. The affair would be used to show that 1) Clemen's character isn't as pure as he claims, and thus isn't as tarnished by claims he used steroids, and 2) there was widespread knowledge of this affair among people he knew, so it isn't as if the people he knew thought him so pure either.

The problem with bringing a defamation suit is that it opens the door on all sorts of attacks on your character, for these damages purposes.

Posted by: Capybara at May 5, 2008 12:04 PM

It can't be used as evidence of his character to limit his damages. His character as a ballplayer is what is at issue in the case. His extra-marital affairs speak to his character as a husband, family man, etc. Whether he slept with zero or 30,000 women has no bearing on his reputation as a ballplayer. To the extent he proves the other elements of his defamation claim, the evidence of his affairs has no bearing on his damages.

In addition, you take the person's reputation before the alleged defamatory utterance. All of these revelations occurred after the alleged defamatory utterance. While Clemens is now libel-proof, he most certainly was not libel-proof before the allegations of his PED use and extra-marital affairs.

Posted by: Taylor at May 5, 2008 01:06 PM

What about the claims that McNamee's attornes will try to call Clemens' wife to testify? Also unlikely.

I still want to know who is paying for McNamee's team of attorneys - a civil case doesn't fit the criteria for pro bono work. Are these lawyers charging their maximum rate and either writing it off as a business expense (so their intent is to prolong the issue as long as possible becuase it gives free pr and a tax benefit, or did they declare it as a donation somehow and write it off as pro bono charity on their taxes?

Citizens are paying for the defense indirectly or it is a component of a legal tax avoidance program.

Posted by: Bob Tufts at May 5, 2008 02:36 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?