Can’t get enough of this Raul Ibañez steroid speculation shit? Good, settle in.
First of all, let me say that this JRod fella from Midwest Sports Fans issued an apology of sorts this morning on his blog. After reading it the first time, I kind of felt bad for the guy. Kind of. In it, he states:
I’ll accept some level of accountability and offer a sincere apology to Raul Ibanez for advancing a public debate that, in his specific case, is very likely unfair and perhaps even unnecessary.
But then comes the “however” part.
However [Ed. Note: told you], I’m not accepting complete blame and accountability for being the person who started this. I just tried to do my homework and write a cogent response to speculation I had heard from other sources, and to comment on what I considered to be a thought-provoking and engaging topic that was already being discussed publicly and privately. The post did not even receive much pub or traffic until it was mentioned in the Philadelphia Inquirer yesterday, but based on the response and the comments the post has received, it seems to me to have proven to be both thought-provoking and engaging.
And that, to me, is what the blogosphere is about.
They key word in that paragraph is “tried”. Yes, you tried to do your homework, JRod. You tried to write a cogent response to speculation that you heard from other sources. (btw, who are these “sources”? Your fantasy baseball friend?) But when you found ZERO evidence of these performance enhancers, you should’ve stricken all of that steroid talk from your article. It’s in the HEADLINE for chrissakes. The article could’ve been easily written to find out which factors are contributing to Ibanez’s hot play of late. In it, you could’ve used your park factors, pitching matchups, new lineup — all that shit. But the fact of the matter is you used that info to try and find out if Raul is on steroids. And that, my friend, is irresponsible.
Listen, if you wanna accuse Ibañez of taking steroids on a message board with your fantasy buddies, or at a bar with your friends, go right ahead. But the minute you publish it on a website where you claim to be a professional writer, you are held accountable. And whether or not you think John Gonzalez of the Inquirer should have highlighted your article is now a moot point — he did. So you can’t play the “I did not consider the potential fallout from the article” side of it. Because as a professional writer who even HINTS at a player using steroids without any facts is not only irresponsible, but borderline libel.
Also buried towards the end of this lengthy semi-apology is an interesting statement:
Plus, I’ve found more statistical evidence since I wrote my article that further explains why Ibanez might be off to such a great start. This article shows how much better Ibanez is hitting with men on base, a situation he finds himself in more often with Philly than he did with Seattle.
Was that information unavailable at the time you published your original article? Because one would think that if you are suggesting someone could perhaps be on the juice, you would do as much research as humanly possible to either prove or debunk your thesis.
Had I considered [this] when writing my article, its speculative nature probably would have been a bit less…although, admittedly, not completely removed.
So even if you had this extra information at your disposal when writing the original post, you still would’ve tossed in the steroid speculation? GRRRRRRRR.
For fuck’s sake, AJ Daulerio — A BLOGGER — had PROOF that Manny Ramirez was on steroids before the 50-game suspension came down on him. If he was ONE-QUARTER as irresponsible as JRod was, he would’ve leaked the information, which in turn, would’ve made Deadspin a household name. Instead, he decided to err on the side of caution, do some more research, and wound up getting shot down by some lawyers. All JRod had was some park dimension bullshit and 50-some-odd games worth of statistics.
It just seems like people are pointing the finger at everyone from John Gonzalez, to Jim Salisbury, to Raul Ibañez himself — when in reality, it’s all JRod’s fault.
The end. Seriously. I’m done talking about this shit.
49 Comments on “More Raul Ibañez Steroid Nonsense!”
Leave a Comment
- Lynniemac on Which One is More Likely?
- Lynniemac on Playoff Diary: Nearly Bartmanesque
- RJ on Playoff Diary: Nearly Bartmanesque
- Gonzo on Which One is More Likely?
- Negro Grande on Which One is More Likely?
Phila-Centric
- 700 Level
- Balls, Sticks & Stuff
- Beerleaguer
- Big Five Post
- Crane Kick Chronicles
- Crashburn Alley
- Finger Food
- Fortress of Pillows
- Four Days Rest
- High Cheese
- House That Glanville Built
- Long Drive
- Macho Row
- Maule of America
- Nittanydelphia
- Okayplayer
- On The DL
- On The Edge
- Phightin’ Phils Phorum
- Philadelphia Will Do
- Philebrity
- Philled In
- Phillie Phanatics
- Philliesflow
- Philly Gameday
- Philly Gossip
- Philly Skyline
- Phils-ville
- Phinally Philly
- Plunk Chutley
- Swing and a Long Drive
- The Dalembert Report
- The Fourth Outfielder
- The Good Phight
- The Insider
- The Pattison Pundit
- The Sexy Crimes
- The Shibe Times
- The Third I
- The Zo Zone
- We're the Team to Beat
- Whiz Witout
- Who Does He Play For?
- WSBGM’s
General
June 10th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Kick his ass, meech.bass!
June 10th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
You know, if they just made steroids legal, none this would even matter
June 10th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Again, WHY DOES THIS GUY GET TO BE ON TELEVISION?
Hey meech, remember that article that I did on how Tim Lincecum is probably on PEDs, because it is inhumanly possible for a guy his size to throw that hard?
No? Don’t remember? Oh, that’s right – BECAUSE I DIDN’T WRITE THAT ARTICLE. And why didn’t I write it? Because, outside of “his numbers look really really good,” there was no evidence, and although I could have written it, I didn’t – why? Because I didn’t want to look like a dumbass in front of the entire internet.
Journalism fail.
(Disclaimer: I never thought that Tim Lincecum was on PEDs, nor did I ever conceive the notion to write such an article. It was only an example. Also, that story you heard about me and the rest stop outside of Houston is totally a false, too.)
June 10th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Gonzo is a douchebag for giving this guy more publicity than he deserves. I don’t blame JRod, I blame Gonzo for asking Ibanez the question.
June 10th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
MEEEEEECH!! MEEEECH!! MEEEEEEEEEEECH!!
/Springer-esque chanting
June 10th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
To be honest with you, ill, if there were more guys like Gonzo calling these fucks out perhaps people would stop being so cot damn lazy when putting together research for something as potentially harming as accusing someone of steroids. Park dimensions? Blogger, please.
June 10th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
You want to talk about irresponsible bloggers … well I have just the man for you. Ladies and gentlemen, check out what TBL wrote in a short:
Jeff Van Gundy and Mark Jackson: Interesting statement by JVG last night when Kobe was cooking in the first half (not verbatim): “He’s one of the top 10 players of All-Time” pregnant pause “when he’s shooting the ball like this.” Without spending too much time on this, Kobe’s probably a fringe Top 10 guy, and your answer is likely to depend on geography and age. …
All right, reading that not direct but summarized quote from Van Gundy, you’d assume he only believes Kobe is in the top 10 discussion when his shot is falling, right? What with the pregnant pause and the qualifier at the end.
One problem, what Van Gundy actually said, again not verbatim, had none of that tone whatsoever. TBL conveniently left out the rest of what Van Gundy said, which was to the effect of: “He’s one of the top 10 player of all-time.” end of sentence. “When he’s shooting the ball like this, he’s almost unguardable.”
A little different, no?
/sorry to bring the NBA into this
/Me likey Raul.
June 10th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
maybe jrod simply mistook rauuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuul’s tobbacky chewing for PED chewing.
happens all the time. fuck the mets.
June 10th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
I love how frequently he mentions that his intent was to publish a thought provoking topic that was “well researched” when he openly admits that he made glaring omissions in his fact finding and that he never considered factors other than PEDs for Ibanez’s early success. While you guys aren’t all journalists and scholars, even bloggers have responsibilities.
June 10th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Oh, one more thing:
Remember when The Mitchell Report was released last year, and there was a list floating around of the players that were implicated? Prior to the official release, there were numerous lists of dubious credibility floating around, one of which listed Albert Pujols as someone who had used PEDs.
In their haste to scoop the story, a few writers released the list with Pujols’ name on it. They then had to issue an apology and retract their statement for unethical and potentially libelous journalism. As such, their credibility took a massive blow because they didn’t take the time to do any additional research to ensure that their source was reliable. And because of that, Pujols banned them from any press conferences. That’s what happens.
As a journalist, you can say or write anything you want, but you are ultimately the ones who are held accountable for those actions. At the end of the day, JRod got some nice publicity out of this, but whether or not his reputation (that is, if he had one) will be affected remains to be seen.
Treyhorn out.
June 10th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
The dude is a dickbag, but he’s surely getting his 15 minutes of fame from this.
June 10th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
He wanted hits to his site so he threw together a steaming pile of shit, touched on a hot topic and published. ESPN picked up on it so more than likely his hits are in the hundreds of thousands(?) today. Come tomorrow it will be back at 1,500 and nobody will remember or care.
good for Rauuulll though. dont back down and call his ass out. Made melaugh though when he said, test my hair. Certainly wouldn’t be the hair on his head. Maybe the sole patch or ball hair but no head hair.
June 10th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Ken Rosenthal and Johnny Rodriguez just demolished JScum on Outside The Lines on ESPN, about 15 minutes ago. It was by far the greatest thing I have watched this week. Fuck the mets.
June 10th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Who you callin a douchebag?
June 10th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Meech, I have to respectfully disagree: you can call what Gonzo did “calling him out,” but it is really just giving the mic to an unsubstantiated source. You can not have journalists giving attention to sources that, when properly examined at the most and briefly fact-checked at the least, do not hold up. Gonzo was lazily looking for some fireworks and allowed this goon to make national waves. Gonzo’s enabling is a disgrace for a newspaper reporter.
June 10th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
What a doucher, this JRod. He needs to watch out bro. Someone should definitely look into whether or not these PED claims are libel against him. If not to actually sue, then to get him to shit his pants over a huge lawsuit.
June 10th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Interesting take on the whole thing, which I tend to agree with.
June 10th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Did anyone record this asshole getting his ass handed to him on OTL?
June 10th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Wasn’t Daulerio’s Manny the wrong Manny?
June 10th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Wow, did anyone read J-Rod’s article. It was very well written and he did tons of research. My conclusion from the article would be that Raul has taken advantage of being in a good lineup, playing in homer friendly ball parks and facing bad pitching. Sure, he alluded that you can’t take steroids out of the equation. But he in no way accused Raul of taking PEDs. Kudos to J-Rod.
June 10th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
After reading the original article I decided to check out the comments section, and this line by JRod really put me off:
“Honestly, I would have liked to have spent about 2,000 more words and another couple of hours researching this article but just did not have time this morning before work started.”
That sounds exactly like irresponsible journalism to me. If you’re not going to do all of the research that even you feel is appropriate, then don’t publish the article!
June 10th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Aaron: the only research he could have done was more number crunching. Since Raul has not taken steroids, he can’t research anything regarding that. He did a terrific job.
June 10th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
@Gonzo
I did read the article, and although he did research his points, it wasn’t nearly thorough enough to make those claims. Although he didn’t accuse Ibanez in the finger-pointing, “I want answers” way, he did bring up PEDs. And if you, as a journalist, are going to make those claims, you have to have more ammunition than “His numbers are above his career average.”
Here’s an example: Let’s say I write an article about how a celebrity is suddenly buying all sorts of property, like yachts, jumbo jets, mansions and etc, and how he has never exhibited such behavior earlier in his life. Ostensibly, I can attribute that to “well, he was never a big spender, so she saved a lot of money” or “he is a movie star, so she can afford it” or “his wife is a billionaire, so she can afford it.” Any one of those would make sense, and they are likely the reason.
But, I can also allude to the fact that maybe this celebrity was taking money under the table for 20 years, and that these business deals are done with income that wasn’t taxed, and that this celebrity has been evading the IRS for two decades. I can only speculate that it’s the truth, because I have no actual proof other than “well, he’s never spent money like this before…”
Do you realize what would happen to me, as a journalist, if I made that claim? I would be sued, sued, and sued again. And I would lose, because I didn’t have a shred of proof to back up those claims.
Just like JRod didn’t have any proof to back up his article outside “Well, he has a lot of homers this season…” Now, as a journalist, he is free to write whatever he wants. But, he has to be held accountable for making claims like this with zero proof.
The end.
June 10th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Speculation can be construed as libel? if that is true, then I am in the wrong. I didnt think saying “he could be on steroids” or “she could be stealing money” can be considered libel.
June 10th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
@Gonzo Yes, they can be construed as libelous claims. Are they? Maybe, maybe not. The point is, you can’t just go off half-cocked without anything to back it up. Otherwise, you look like an ass.
June 10th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Forgive me for being anal here. It didnt sound like a “claim” that he was on steroids. He said that he cant count it out.
June 10th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
“I’ll accept some level of accountability and offer a sincere apology to Raul Ibanez for advancing a public debate that, in his specific case, is very likely unfair and perhaps even unnecessary.”
Yet this fucktard decides to go on ESPN and keep it going. What a jackass.
June 10th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
@Gonzo – First let me acknowledge that I didn’t read the article. Anyway, the statement that he “can’t count it out” is rather meaningless since it is true of EVERY athlete. Negative test results are not released to the public. We never know when a player is NOT on steroids, only when he IS on steroids.
June 10th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Zach, you are correct. I should change it to that he cant count out if PEDs are involved. The one PED they dont test for is HGH (i dont know what the others are).
June 10th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
“You can have my urine, my hair, my blood, my stool – anything you can test,” Ibanez said.
anyone else calling the ibanez bluff? seriously, how are we going to get a hair sample?
June 10th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
Matt, he’s not Michael Phelps. The man has body hair.
I read this at work today and flipped out in a way only Carlos Zambrano could approve, until I read Rauuuuul’s reaction. I love it. I know everyone claims they’re clean, but still…I’m biased.
June 10th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
JMS, didnt Sheffield make the same statement a couple years ago? When he did, I called bullshit. I knew he made those statements because the union would never allow it. Philly fans are wearing rose colored glasses here.
June 10th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Gonzo, thank you for re-stating my last sentence in a way that makes it seem like I never wrote it.
June 10th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
i like how jrod says
“i tried to do my homework”
later on he says,
“I did not consider..”
i call that contradictory, ya dick. And, who nicknames themsevles?
June 10th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
Breaking story: Wheels just denied using Twitter. I say we test his hair, blood, urine, and stool.
June 10th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
Future Phillies promotion: Raul Ibanez Stool Night. A barstool with number 29 and Ibanez’s signature on it. The tagline could be “Raul Ibanez will give you his stool!”
June 10th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
Okay, I have read the Inquirer pieces, the story on phillies.com, and the blog posts on Midwest Sports Fans, and I honestly don’t see what JRod said that makes him cowardly, or irresponsible, or a dickbag, or whatever. He may well be all those things – I don’t know either way – but I can’t see evidence of it in his posts.
I’m also confused as to how “I tried to do my homework” and “I did not consider” are contradictory. Even the most thorough and meticulous mainstream journalist can miss something while attempting to do any and all possible research.
For the record, I do not think Ibanez has used PEDs, but I do understand – in this, the steroid era – where the speculation comes from. It’s unfortunate that someone who by all accounts is a dedicated, hardworking team player and all-around good guy has to be part of the PED suspicion, but that’s on the shoulders of the players who have tainted the game and Major League Baseball and the Player’s Association who allowed it to happen.
June 10th, 2009 at 11:59 pm
@Lynniemac
“I’m also confused as to how “I tried to do my homework” and “I did not consider” are contradictory. Even the most thorough and meticulous mainstream journalist can miss something while attempting to do any and all possible research.”
Errors and Omissions are acceptable, so long as the writer is willing to take responsibility for his mistakes. In school, I always “did my homework” but my answers weren’t always right. When I wrong I was awarded with an F. Jrod gets an “F” for his homework attempt.
June 11th, 2009 at 1:00 am
@Gaze
You make a fair enough point, but I think it may be a bit simplistic. I doubt a wrong answer or missed point garnered you an F on the whole project. Likewise, I don’t think Jrod’s failure to consider and use every piece of information invalidates his entire post.
June 11th, 2009 at 1:40 am
@Dash
…wait, I’m totally confused. Is the celebrity a man or a woman?
June 11th, 2009 at 4:38 am
…not to mention that baseball pretty much lost any right to get indignant about steroid accusations 15 years ago
June 11th, 2009 at 8:45 am
@Pete Roast – Male celebrity…although it was originally female because I used a real celeb’s name, but I thought it was in the best interest to use the default “male” sex for the example. I just missed a few of them when changing to “he” or “him.”
@Lynniemac I wouldn’t consider JRod to be a coward, but just a poor journalist. He had no information, other than Raul’s statistics, to base his theory on. And I understand that we live in an era of baseball when no one is above suspicion, and to be fair, he was trying to quell the notion of Raul using PEDs, but there still has to be some accountability. Had he just used Raul as an example of the players who are going to be lumped in with everyone else, that would have been one thing. But he didn’t do that; he wrote an entire article about Raul, and he ended it with the “well, steroids might be causing this spike – but I hope it isn’t true.” It’s just irresponsible writing, and he had zero evidence to even suggest such a thing, theory or not.
June 11th, 2009 at 8:55 am
Two cheers for Raul for calling this guy out, but seriously, there are thousands of other blog posts alleging the same thing about several different players. Look at the various blog posts regarding Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds. How is it any different? Neither Clemens nor Bonds has been found guilty of using PED’s. Is it different this time because it’s RAAAUUUUUL? Would all of you be calling JRod a douche if he wrote that article about Jose Reyes or David Wright? I’m not defending JRod, but we have to remember that everyone has the freedom of opinion and expression and the right to express their opinions without interference. As Gonzo said, I don’t see where an actual claim was made.
Regardless of how you feel about this whole situation, let it be a reminder to all of us with blogs, or even those who just post responses on other’s blogs, that people do read these things and we need to be mindful of what we post.
June 11th, 2009 at 9:07 am
@Joe Tap The difference is there is a mountain of evidence, including books, reports, user accounts, etc that link Clemens and Bonds to PEDs. There is no such evidence that links Raul to them. That is the difference. This guy just based it solely on his numbers, and nothing else. He has the right to say whatever he wants, but he has to be more responsible in what he says and how he says it.
And yes, I would feel the same if it was David Wright or Jose Reyes.
June 11th, 2009 at 9:07 am
I broke down and read the JRoid article. I held out for a few days – but this is ri-cotdamn-diculous. The article was well written, and I initially thought “hey, maybe this is overblown.”
But it’s not. It’s grossly irresponsible. Whatever the intent, this knob put Ibanez and Steroids in the fucking title of his post to get people to look at it. After that, the content of the piece boils down to “I looked at the parks and the pitchers and can’t explain why he’s playing well for the first third of the season so I can’t say he’s not on steroids but I weally weally hopes he’s not.”
JRoid wrote a post in which he was unable to come to a conclusion about why one of his fantasy players was playing well – which makes the steroid lede reprehensible.
I’ve never heard of this guy before. It looks like his career prior to being lambasted on ESPN OTL consisted of languishing in the midwest. Perhaps this offseason he trained harder than ever, and that training included…..
Oh, and by the way, how about the bump a good player from a perennially bad team gets when he joins the defending World Fucking Champions and gets to hit in a lineup with Jimmy, Chase, Ryan, Shane, Jayson, Chooch and Brett Myers? Think that helps a guys stats?
Conclusion on JRoid: EPIC FAIL for lack of journalistic integrity – take your lumps, knob.
June 11th, 2009 at 9:48 am
@Dash:
I do agree that Jrod’s posts are not good journalism, but are they meant to be? I read his posts as exactly that: blog posts, not news articles. I realize the line between the two is increasingly blurred, but to my way of thinking there is still a difference (as a side note: if you’d like examples of something presented as journalism that is not good journalism, I’ll gladly send you a copy of my current ‘hometown’ newspaper, The Allentown Morning Call).
I guess I just don’t understand what he said that was so terrible. He said it is possible that Raul Ibanez used steroids. Like it or not, that’s a true statement. I personally do not believe that Raul did, but it is as true a statement as saying “Charlie Manuel may have farted yesterday.” I don’t know whether he did or didn’t, but I’m sure a quick Googling of “flatulence” would yield a whole bunch of statistics and scientific evidence that would suggest it’s a likely possiblity. Had Jrod said “Raul Ibanez used steroids”, THAT would be worthy of all the internet chat, ESPN coverage, public indignation, and name calling that he’s getting (not to mention all the lawsuits that would follow).
As for the fact that he wrote an entire article (or blog post, to my way of thinking) about Raul instead of just lumping him in with all ballplayers, I think people are either forgetting or outright overlooking the fact that his impetus for the original post was a message board posting which came much, MUCH closer to accusing Ibanez outright of steroid use. I don’t see all the hand wringing about that message which seems to be to be far more incendiary.
June 11th, 2009 at 10:23 am
@Lynniemac Blog post or not, that’s no excuse for poor journalism. It’s not as if though the title of the article (or blog post, if you will) was “Raul and steroids? LOLZ u guyz!” It was meant to be taken seriously, and as such, it is open to the same criticisms as the New York Times.
And you’re right, there is a possibility that every player on every team has used PEDs at one point or another. But does that mean you should write an article about every player when they are having a good season? No, you shouldn’t, especially when the player in question has never been implicated in the slightest.
And your example comparing steroids to flatulence is laughable (that was your intent, I presume), because to suggest that a player may have used PEDs is far, far more serious than suggesting that a person may have broke wind. (Although it is hi-larious.) The use of PEDs is an unethical, and in most cases, illegal action that could significantly compromise a person’s integrity and career. Take Sammy Sosa, for instance. The only thing he is guilty of is using a corked bat and not having a mastery of the English language. Yet, there is a cloud of controversy surrounding him because he has been implicated as someone who has used PEDs, despite there being very, very little evidence to suggest that he has. That is the power that journalists have. They can create suspicion where there is none. And whether JRod wants to admit it or not, and despite his intent, that is what he did. He didn’t come right out and say “Raul Ibanez used steroids,” but the title of the article contained the words “Raul Ibanez” and “Steroid Speculation” within an inch of each other. It doesn’t matter how you slice it, you have to realize what this is going to stir up. Unfortunately for JRod, he didn’t foresee this. He could have written this same article with some different language, and it would have passed under the radar and we wouldn’t be having this conversation. That is the reality of it. Bloggers, just the same as professional journalists, have to be held accountable when it comes to things of this nature.
June 11th, 2009 at 10:52 am
@Dash
I just realized that I didn’t fully explain my thought on Jrod writing an article about Raul Ibanez and not ballplayers in general. My bad and I take full responsibility for not expressing myself correctly. My point was that Jrod wrote his piece because of a specific message board posting about a specific player and the specific career high stats he’s putting up thus far this year. Had Jrod turned it into a general “all ballplayers may have possibly used PEDs at some point” statement, he would have been straying completely off the point of the original message to which he was responding.
Yes, I meant my flatulence example to be at least a little humorous (okay, who am I kidding – I’d like nothing better than for someone to say they read that and laughed so hard milk came out of their nose or they peed themselves or something), but I think it also illustrated my point. Of course PED use is far more serious than someone breaking wind (especially if that someone is an older man with a history of digestive issues), but saying that someone may have done one or both of those things is still a true statement. Just as if you said “Lynniemac may have visited a Norwegian goat porn site” is a true statement. You’d not be saying I did, you’d be saying I may have.
The title of the original post is “The Curious Case of Raul Ibanez: Steroid Speculation Perhaps Unfair, but Great Start in 2009 Raising Eyebrows.” As you pointed out, that title contains the words “Raul Ibanez” and “Steroid Speculation” next to each other. For Jrod not to realize the storm that title would cause is very, very incredibly naive, but at the same time, isn’t it also the responsibility of readers to read past the 4 incendiary words and take the title (and it’s following post) as a whole? Raul Ibanez is having a great start this year, there is steroid speculation (to which Jrod was responding) and it’s, clearly, raising eyebrows. I realize it’s very, very incredibly naive of ME to expect some internet readers to read as objectively as we’d like our writers to write, but just because they don’t, it doesn’t mean they shouldn’t do so.
June 11th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
Okay, not to beat a dead horse, but what if JRod did actually state that Ibanez used steroids? (for those who did not read the article, he did NOT state that…I’m asking “what if.”) Libel, right? The only defense to libel is the truth, and right now, we don’t know one way or another if Ibanez used steroids. He said he didn’t, but who knows the truth. He would need to prove the truth in order to win a libel suit. But beyond that, in order to sue for libel, you need to suffer actual damages. What damage would Raul Ibanez suffer because JRod said he took steroids in his blog? Would he lose his contract? No. Would no team consider signing him in 2012 because of what JRod wrote on his blog? No. You can’t sue someone for libel because they simply said something about you. You need to suffer some sort of damage, and I highly suspect JRod’s blog isn’t influential enough to cause damage to Raul. dead horse..right?