Barry Bonds best be careful where he aim's lawsuits...

Bonds sues to keep steroids claiming book authors from profiting...

Apparently Barry Bonds isn't afraid of taking the rumored Tom Cruise/ Scientology approach (if you haven't followed that tiff, then you haven't been following the South Park, Chef, Scientology, Tom Cruise is in the Closet controversy and I can't help you much there, but oh well) and is now reportedly going to sue the authors of the book that makes well documented claims that Bonds has used steroids and other performance enhancing drugs in his quests to become MLB's greatest homerun hitter of all time.

The news on the suit can be found here: Bonds to sue over book detailing steroid use.

Here's the problem for Bonds though - he's apparently forgetting that in the world of libel and slander, truth is an absolute defense. If the authors of the book have done their homework, and from early reports based on released clips from the book they have, they will have a literary ton of evidence to supply to back up the claims they are making.

If Bonds' lawyer(s) take the case to court, it's possible that the judge could starting issuing findings of FACT that could very well do more harm to Bonds' reputation than simply having a book out could. The book, as things stand, is well documented, but still isn't legally fact. Once it becomes legally fact, or once portions of it are determined to be legally factual, there would be no turning back, and no putting the genie back into the bottle.

Personally, I think one would have to be a complete maroon (or perhaps a C.O.L.) to believe that Bonds never used steroids and other performance enhancers. I didn't need a book to tell me he did, as I could see the numbers, and the numbers didn't lie. He was a good player, and a good hitter/runner/base stealer, and became a great hitter, and took his home run hitting production to places one would never originally have imagined. The type of increase that was seen in his production could only have come from the type of help that was used by Sosa, McGwire, Giambi, Canseco and others, most of whom have admitted to using 'science' to help their game.

As well, one can look visually at Bonds and see the massive increase in the size of Bonds' head and face. He's bloated or swollen to a point as to be a gross charicature of his former self.

Finally, much as was reported in the book's earlier released sections, anyone that has followed Bonds' career know that he has a huge ego and can't stand the idea that someone else might be better than he. It's easy to see where the 1998 McGwire vs. Sosa home run chase would have inspired Bonds to go for broke.

In anycase, I expect Bonds and his lawyers may wind up very sorry they even hinted at a lawsuit here, as they may not like the results of it if they actually wind up in a court room.
2,235 views 9 replies
Reply #1 Top
I guess I should be a bit worried that I'll be added to Bonds' list of targets for suing, but then again, my name is "John Smith", the article above was written by "John Smith", etc. (again, reference South Park's episode taking on Scientology).
Reply #2 Top
Worse, if he makes any claims about them that could be considered defamatory, THEY could sue HIM. There is a lot lower standard of proof in civil courts, and like you say if they came in with their homework neatly prepared the findings could be pretty damning. They couldn't find that he actually used steroids, but if the judgement was that the evidence used to make the claim was credible enough to stand up in court...

I dunno what he thinks he is protecting, anyway. He got booed the last I heard. If he breaks a bunch of records they are just going on the pile of records in the last few years that people don't really accept as honest.
Reply #3 Top
Truth is stranger than fiction.  Call me a COL, but I think there is a definite possibility that he is innocent.  He has nothing to gain by being guilty and suing, and while you may question his intelligence, I think you would have to be a very stupid lawyer to file such a suit knowing your client was guilty.
Reply #4 Top
Following up on this a bit more....

Apparently Bonds' lawyers are going at the angle that the information that comes from leaked Grand Jury testimony was illegally obtained and can't be used for profit, if ever used. They aren't disputing the facts, only that there should be no profit to be made from the use of the facts.

On the other end, ESPN Radio is now reporting that Bonds is now being sued by the S.F. Chronicle and/or the authors of the book, which is the danger I hinted at to begin with.


Bonds is definitely in a world of trouble now. If he can't dispute the facts (and doesn't seem to be trying to), then he is tainted goods. The damage from the book and/or it's charges is done, or is being done, and won't go away.
Reply #5 Top
"Apparently Bonds' lawyers are going at the angle that the information that comes from leaked Grand Jury testimony was illegally obtained and can't be used for profit, if ever used. They aren't disputing the facts, only that there should be no profit to be made from the use of the facts."


That will only work if they were the direct recipiants of the info from the jury. If the leak went to the press and they got it from the press, then it isn't a leak, it is news.
Reply #6 Top
I can hardly wait until Bonds' lawyers take the writers to the stand in order to unearth the truth. I read the excerpt from the book in ESPN Magazine. Wow, very revelatory.
Reply #7 Top
Poor Bonds and his lawyers... apparently the Judge didn't buy their arguments at all. Reference news link here: Judge rejects Bonds' bid against writers, publisher over book alleging steroid use

By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- A judge denied Barry Bonds' bid to block the authors and publishers from making money on a book claiming the San Francisco Giants slugger used steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs, and said Bonds' suit against them has little chance of success.

Bonds' attorneys argued that the authors, publisher Gotham Books, the San Francisco Chronicle and Sports Illustrated, which published excerpts of the book, should be held liable for publishing "illegally obtained grand jury transcripts."

The book, "Game of Shadows," by Chronicle reporters Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams, is based partly on grand jury testimony from a federal investigation into the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative, where Bonds and several other major league players allegedly obtained performance-enhancing drugs.

But Judge James Warren refused to issue a temporary restraining order against the authors and publisher, citing free speech protections. And though he did not throw out the lawsuit, Warren said it has little chance of success.

Meanwhile, Bonds' attorneys also sent a letter Friday to U.S. District Judge Susan Illston demanding that the writers and publishers be held liable.

"The true victim is not Barry Bonds, but the sanctity and integrity of the grand jury process," attorney Alison Berry Wilkinson wrote.

Reply #8 Top
I believe Barry Bonds, knowingly or unknowingly, used steroids. I also believe not only did he use but also alot more did than just Canseco, Palmiero, Sosa, McGwire, Giambi and Sheffield.

I believe the only reason Barry Bonds is singled out more is because his relationship with the media and the fact he is close to breaking a cherish record. If he was nowhere near the record I didn't think people would care or care as much.

Baseball did nothing but sit back and let McGwire and Sosa do what they did because coming off a strike those two brought many fans back to the game with their home run duel. By not doing anything other players started doing the same thing. I think baseball deserves some blame in all of this.

Taking steroids to get an advantage is cheating. But is there degrees of cheating? What if a player was rumored to have used corked bats during his career? What about pitchers who use spit or other substances to make their pitches break more? Should they also be singled out? What about all the little hitting players who suddenly hit 20 to 30 homers a year during the same time? Shouldn't they also be named in the press? After all, even a not-so-well-known cheater is still a cheater.
Reply #9 Top
uDigItTheMost, I understand somewhat where you are coming from, but I don't think you are entirely correct.

There were plenty in baseball that ignored what Bonds, Sosa, McGwire, Canseco, Giambi and others were doing, but there were also many that didn't like the situation a bit, and wanted something done to fix it. The problem was with McGwire, Sosa, Giambi and company, until Canseco came out with his own book making it's accusations, and until the Balco scandal hit, and then later these charges against Bonds (with the Palmiero flunked test along the way) came out, there was little or no proof, and a very ineffective testing policy on the part of MLB in general.

Once MLB saw that they very obviously had a problem they started worrying about it, but only half-heartedly, until they were forced to do something about it congress, the world and others.

There are plenty of folks like myself that aren't happy about the very tainted records that have been posted in the last dozen years. There have been ungodly numbers posted by players that have doubled in size and strength almost overnight. Bonds is quite obviously one of those people.

Lets be very clear about this all though -- the taint that is on Bonds isn't because Bonds isn't liked by the media, it's because he is a blown up and bloated toon of his former self. If Bonds looked more like Ken Griffey, Jr., while smacking these homeruns (meaning more like his old self), rather than looking like he has a head twenty sizes too big for his body, except for the fact that his body has added gross amounts of muscle as well, then we would probably never suspect him at all. The same was true with McGwire, and with Sosa.

It's not because the media hates Barry Bonds, or because he hates them. It's not because he's BLACK. It's because he has very obviously cheated (of which the book that is referenced in the original article documents quite well).