PDA

View Full Version : Clemens files suit!


StepsInSC
01-07-2008, 08:02 AM
Clemens has filed suit against McNamee for defamation. This shocks me: I'm no first amendment attorney, but I'm assuming Clemens would be deemed a public figure and have to prove the almost impossible burden of malicious intent in addition to falsity... If there's any way he could get worse press, I would guess that losing a defamation lawsuit would do it.

http://www.rotoworld.com/content/HeadLines.aspx?sport=MLB&hl=227946

ilsox7
01-07-2008, 08:15 AM
I'm not sure malice or reckless disregard of the truth would be that difficult to prove in this case. I mean, the trainer knew what was going to happen when he named Clemens. He had seen what happened to other players who have been branded as steroid users.

I think Clemens will fail to prove the allegations false, so actual malice won't come into play. Even if the allegations are false, how in the hell will he prove it?

the1tab
01-07-2008, 09:12 AM
Did the Rocket make eye contact with Mike Wallace last night ONCE? I wouldn't be shocked if Clemens settles out of court and then doesn't testify in front of Congress, buys a couple square miles in Texas and isn't heard from again until his son makes the bigs w/ the Astrohs.

I was, however, intrigued by his response to Mike Wallace's question about what players that used should get/what punishment they deserve. "They're getting it; their bodies will break down" is the weakest pass on judgement I've heard in years.

I'm just mad I didn't sell my Gem Mint 10 rated Clemens rookie card a year ago. HAHA

Chez
01-07-2008, 09:18 AM
I think Clemens will fail to prove the allegations false, so actual malice won't come into play. Even if the allegations are false, how in the hell will he prove it?

It's always difficult to prove something didn't happen. Clemens will testify that he never received steroids and put on witnesses who spent time with Clemens during the relevant time frame who will testify that they never saw Clemens being injected with steroids, etc. MacNamee will testify that he injected steroids into Clemens and it will be left to the jury to sort out which side of the story they believe. If this case survives the numerous pre-trial motions and gets to the jury, Clemens has a great chance to prevail.

ilsox7
01-07-2008, 09:26 AM
It's always difficult to prove something didn't happen. Clemens will testify that he never received steroids and put on witnesses who spent time with Clemens during the relevant time frame who will testify that they never saw Clemens being injected with steroids, etc. MacNamee will testify that he injected steroids into Clemens and it will be left to the jury to sort out which side of the story they believe. If this case survives the numerous pre-trial motions and gets to the jury, Clemens has a great chance to prevail.

Well, I think it's a long shot at best that it survives pre-trial motions. As you said, it's near impossible to prove something that did not happen.

Oblong
01-07-2008, 09:26 AM
Could this be just a legal procedural thing since McNamee already said he'd sue Clemens if he denied it so Clemens is trying to get the first jump?

ilsox7
01-07-2008, 09:31 AM
Could this be just a legal procedural thing since McNamee already said he'd sue Clemens if he denied it so Clemens is trying to get the first jump?

What advantage is there to getting the first suit in?

StepsInSC
01-07-2008, 09:35 AM
What advantage is there to getting the first suit in?

Primary one, I suppose, is the publicity - which is probably what Clemens is after. I don't know if choice of forum was a motivating factor or not.

Chez
01-07-2008, 09:38 AM
What advantage is there to getting the first suit in?

You get to choose the forum/venue -- kind of like home field advantage.

ilsox7
01-07-2008, 09:43 AM
You get to choose the forum/venue -- kind of like home field advantage.

Yea, but it will just be removed to federal court.

voodoochile
01-07-2008, 10:22 AM
Did the Rocket make eye contact with Mike Wallace last night ONCE? I wouldn't be shocked if Clemens settles out of court and then doesn't testify in front of Congress, buys a couple square miles in Texas and isn't heard from again until his son makes the bigs w/ the Astrohs.

I was, however, intrigued by his response to Mike Wallace's question about what players that used should get/what punishment they deserve. "They're getting it; their bodies will break down" is the weakest pass on judgement I've heard in years.

I'm just mad I didn't sell my Gem Mint 10 rated Clemens rookie card a year ago. HAHA

No freaking way he sues without trying to get his day in court. He'd drop it before that happens unless he can get McNamee to retract his statement as part of the settlement, but I don't think McNamee can do that without getting hit with perjury charges (though I could be wrong).

This isn't about money it's about clearing Roger's name. He doesn't need money and how much is he going to get from McNamee anyway?

Most likely this is an attempt to find out what physical documentation is out there that supports McNamee's claim. Hopefully they can get it ASAP so Roger can decide quickly whether to appear before Congress next week, but more likely I expect him to decline the invitation on the basis of the golf outing invitation and set a date to meet in 30 or 60 days so he can find out what is out there on him first. Then he can figure out how to get out of the next Congressional Q&A if he doesn't like what he finds.

In either case, this doesn't really hurt him. He can drop the suit in the future and make the claim it wasn't financially worth it to see it through.

Fenway
01-07-2008, 10:23 AM
:popcorn:

McNamee appears to be ready to play Ace Trump.

Both the NY Daily News and WFAN are hinting Andy Pettitte was present when Roger was injected while with the Yankees.

from the Daily News

"There are at least five other people who will be able to corroborate McNamee's story, starting with Andy Pettitte," said the lawyer, who spoke on the condition he not be named. "Andy is not going to lie."

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/2008/01/06/2008-01-06_on_60_minutes_roger_clemens_says_steroid.html

Fenway
01-07-2008, 10:27 AM
for the WSI lawyers The motion to the court

http://multimedia.nydailynews.com/pdf/2008/1/7/2008.01.06_Clemens_Original_Petition.pdf (http://multimedia.nydailynews.com/pdf/2008/1/7/2008.01.06_Clemens_Original_Petition.pdf)

Fenway
01-07-2008, 10:54 AM
My wife who is a lawyer is pondering all of this

She thinks that by doing this Roger can escape Congress saying that there is now a pending legal case on the matter.

But if McNamee has Pettitte as a witness :o:

She says McNamee has some very good lawyers on board and that Roger's Houston team is AAA by comparison.

Of course she points out that Roger may not have told his lawyers the truth either.

meanwhile...

HOUSTON - One of the two FBI agents in charge of Operation Equine - the landmark steroids investigation in the early '90s that led to more than 70 trafficking convictions and exposed former sluggers Mark McGwire and Jose Canseco - told the Daily News he thinks Roger Clemens was less than honest in Sunday night's "60 Minutes" interview.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/2008/01/07/2008-01-07_exfbi_agent_in_operation_equine_says_rog.html

voodoochile
01-07-2008, 11:31 AM
My wife who is a lawyer is pondering all of this

She thinks that by doing this Roger can escape Congress saying that there is now a pending legal case on the matter.

But if McNamee has Pettitte as a witness :o:

She says McNamee has some very good lawyers on board and that Roger's Houston team is AAA by comparison.

Of course she points out that Roger may not have told his lawyers the truth either.

meanwhile...

HOUSTON - One of the two FBI agents in charge of Operation Equine - the landmark steroids investigation in the early '90s that led to more than 70 trafficking convictions and exposed former sluggers Mark McGwire and Jose Canseco - told the Daily News he thinks Roger Clemens was less than honest in Sunday night's "60 Minutes" interview.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/2008/01/07/2008-01-07_exfbi_agent_in_operation_equine_says_rog.html


Good point on the lawsuit stopping the Congressional testimony. Now Roger can golf in peace. In addition, he can start answering all questions about steroids, "can't comment, lawsuit" which will at least give him a cover story for shutting up. It's actually a pretty decent strategy. For all intents and purposes, he gets the last word and now can stonewall and hope this blows over. It's not going to blow over, but it can't hurt to wait until the next big name comes out and one will eventually - probably in April when Canseco's book hits the stands.

Fenway
01-07-2008, 11:41 AM
Good point on the lawsuit stopping the Congressional testimony. Now Roger can golf in peace. In addition, he can start answering all questions about steroids, "can't comment, lawsuit" which will at least give him a cover story for shutting up. It's actually a pretty decent strategy. For all intents and purposes, he gets the last word and now can stonewall and hope this blows over. It's not going to blow over, but it can't hurt to wait until the next big name comes out and one will eventually - probably in April when Canseco's book hits the stands.

I can't help of thinking how Roger showed 'roid rage' a few times in his career.

There was a game at old Comiskey where he went nuts and almost had to be carried off the field as he was screaming.
(anybody remember what set that off?)

The playoff game when he started swearing at Terry Cooney

Mike Piazza

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/topstory/clemens1024.jpg

Chez
01-07-2008, 11:45 AM
I don't believe a related pending civil lawsuit (as opposed to a pending criminal case) is a basis to refuse to appear before Congress or to refuse to answer a question at a congressional hearing. Clemens can not invoke his 5th Amendment rights simply because his answer might jeopardize or impact his civil case against MacNamee.

Irishsox1
01-07-2008, 11:47 AM
Roger is resorting to the "Big Lie" which was used by Hitler. It ain't gonna work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Lie

thomas35forever
01-07-2008, 11:48 AM
I was going to scoff at Clemens in this post, but the intelligent responses on here have made me reconsider.

I agree with the poster that says this suit probably isn't about money. I think Roger wants to reclaim his good name. I just pray that we don't feel like fools and the allegations due turn out to be false.

jackbrohamer
01-07-2008, 11:57 AM
Mike Piazza

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/topstory/clemens1024.jpg


That's the only rational explanation for his bizarre bahavior with Piazza. Consistent with what he is doing now, he denied that he threw the bat intentionally, an utterly idiotic form of denial

Clemens is raising "protesting too much" to a high art form. If he actually took steroids he will get burned terribly by it.

voodoochile
01-07-2008, 11:59 AM
I can't help of thinking how Roger showed 'roid rage' a few times in his career.

There was a game at old Comiskey where he went nuts and almost had to be carried off the field as he was screaming.
(anybody remember what set that off?)

The playoff game when he started swearing at Terry Cooney

Mike Piazza

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/topstory/clemens1024.jpg

That Piazza incident really jumped out at me as a possible example of roid rage when all this came out. I remember seeing Roger's face as he reacted to the shattered bat coming at him and then him chucking it at Piazza. At the time it struck me as odd because even the hardest competitor has to realize that a batter has no control over where the pieces of his shattered bat ends up, but Roger was clearly furious and ready to start a brawl.

Definitely something that makes you go "Hmmmmmm..."

Oblong
01-07-2008, 12:09 PM
Either that or he is such a baby, chicken ****, and wuss that he was mad that he crapped his drawers over fear of getting hit with a bat.

Piazza's reaction was great too. Bewilderment.

Madvora
01-07-2008, 12:14 PM
http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/topstory/clemens1024.jpg

Is there video of this out there somewhere? I'd like to see it again.
I don't see it on Youtube.

The Immigrant
01-07-2008, 12:16 PM
I read the complaint this morning and found it interesting that neither George Mitchell nor MLB were listed as defendants, since they are the ones who actually published the statements made by McNamee. This could be grounds for a motion to dismiss by McNamee. I expect McNamee to remove the action to federal court and to counterclaim for damages, essentially making this a his-word-against-Roger's type of case. For those of you hoping for a quick resolution, note that discovery and other pre-trial proceedings in this type of a civil action will take at least a year and probably more given that on-going government investigations are implicated. My guess is at least two years.

The cynic in me also sees this as an opportunity for Clemens to reach a confidential settlement (read: payoff) with McNamee once the media storm blows over.

jackbrohamer
01-07-2008, 12:29 PM
Either that or he is such a baby, chicken ****, and wuss that he was mad that he crapped his drawers over fear of getting hit with a bat.

That's exactlfy what he is. Consistent the guy being a head hunter in a league where he never had to bat. He was too big of a wuss to mix it up with Piazza but he's OK with throwing dangerous objects at him from a distance

Save McCuddy's
01-07-2008, 12:36 PM
Once you start the "deny, deny, deny" defense, there's no turning back. A psycho roid rager like Rajah will probably begin to believe in his own innocence the further this crusade proceeds. What a rock head.

StepsInSC
01-07-2008, 12:38 PM
I read the complaint this morning and found it interesting that neither George Mitchell nor MLB were listed as defendants, since they are the ones who actually published the statements made by McNamee. This could be grounds for a motion to dismiss by McNamee. I expect McNamee to remove the action to federal court and to counterclaim for damages, essentially making this a his-word-against-Roger's type of case. For those of you hoping for a quick resolution, note that discovery and other pre-trial proceedings in this type of a civil action will take at least a year and probably more given that on-going government investigations are implicated. My guess is at least two years.

The cynic in me also sees this as an opportunity for Clemens to reach a confidential settlement (read: payoff) with McNamee once the media storm blows over.

Wouldn't the malice requirement pretty much preclude Mitchell/MLB liability? While McNamee may have had a malevolent intent, it would be much harder to prove MLB and Mitchell did - their intent, at least how they would phrase it, was to clean up the game.

And would they constitute necessary/indispensable parties? Seems like they would just be joint tortfeasors, which are not necessary parties.

The Immigrant
01-07-2008, 12:59 PM
Wouldn't the malice requirement pretty much preclude Mitchell/MLB liability?

Not if Clemens could show they acted with reckless disregard for the truth, which admittedly is unlikely given the nature of Mitchell's investigation and the millions in legal fees charged by the law firm of which he is chairman. Their "intent" to clean up the game would be irrelevant for purposes of the malice requirement.

And would they constitute necessary/indispensable parties? Seems like they would just be joint tortfeasors, which are not necessary parties

They may be indispensible for the defamation claim because they published McNamee's allegations. Without the publication there would only be a claim for libel, but this depends on the specifics of applicable state law. I'm not really sure either way - just throwing it out there. Litigation is not my specialty. :D:

StepsInSC
01-07-2008, 01:09 PM
Not if Clemens could show they acted with reckless disregard for the truth, which admittedly is unlikely given the nature of Mitchell's investigation and the millions in legal fees charged by the law firm of which he is chairman. Their "intent" to clean up the game would be irrelevant for purposes of the malice requirement.



They may be indispensible for the defamation claim because they published McNamee's allegations. Without the publication there would only be a claim for libel, but this depends on the specifics of applicable state law. I'm not really sure either way - just throwing it out there. Litigation is not my specialty. :D:


I see. Yeah I didn't know if it was wrong or right, which is why I just phrased them as questions rather than statements. Although I'm in litigation, I'm so green that the only thing I can consider a specialty are bar exam topics.

Paulwny
01-07-2008, 02:05 PM
I don't believe a related pending civil lawsuit (as opposed to a pending criminal case) is a basis to refuse to appear before Congress or to refuse to answer a question at a congressional hearing. Clemens can not invoke his 5th Amendment rights simply because his answer might jeopardize or impact his civil case against MacNamee.


Clemens was asked to appear he was never subpoenad. He now has the perfect excuse for not acccepting the invitation.

TDog
01-07-2008, 03:41 PM
While I certainly am in no position to judge the merits of the litigation, I know a civil complaint provides as strong a denial as possible for Clemens. It also raises the stakes.

It reminds me of Oscar Wilde in 1895 filing a complaint of criminal libel against the Marquess of Queensbeery, alleging Queensberry accused him of illegal sexual practices. Queensberry successfully used the truth defense, and the revelations of Wilde's private life led to a conviction on a charge of gross indecency. Wilde was sentenced to two years of hard labor, which probably contributed to his death in 1900.

The stakes for Clemens obviously aren't as high, especially if the case simply dismissed because of the high standard of proof in defamation cases. But if Clemens ends up on the wrong end of a countersuit, his reputation will suffer far greater damage than it already has.

Fenway
01-07-2008, 03:51 PM
Ken Rosenthal wonders if Roger knows what he is in for.

Clemens' suit could draw government reaction (http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/7646786)


The feds don't like to be smeared, and the lawsuit does just that.
"According to McNamee," Clemens' petition states, "he originally made his allegations to federal authorities after being threatened with criminal prosecution if he did not implicate Clemens (as a user of performance-enhancing drugs)." That allegation of coercion if proven would be a significant blow to other federal investigations, including the government's long-running case against Barry Bonds.

Newsday reported yesterday that McNamee and Clemens talked for an hour on Friday.