Here at FanHouse, we're long on sports opinion but, with one notable exception, a little lighter when it comes to the rules of evidence for litigation. We're a sports blog, so that's okay, but when things like the Roger Clemens defamation suit come around it does leave us a bit exposed. Around these parts, we've made a lot of reference to how the numerous allegations of infidelity reflect on Clemens's character and, by extension, his chances of succeeding in said suit. According to Howard Wasserman at the Sports Law Blog, the two things don't have anything to do with one another.
First, any effect on Clemens' reputation from these statements came after McNamee's statements and the Mitchell Report and damage to reputation must be measured from the time of the libelous statements. Second, McNamee's statements damaged Clemens's professional reputation--his status as the greatest pitcher of his generation--and his reputation for marital fidelity has nothing to do with that professional reputation. Third, character is not the same thing as reputation.In short, the stories about affairs might serve to cement Clemens as a creep in the court of public opinion but they don't hold much weight in a court of law. The one exception Wasserman notes is if Clemens lied about the affair when asked but his statement admitting he made mistakes seems to close that door.
From Brian McNamee's (and his lawyers) standpoint, what benefit do they gain from this information coming out? It could taint the jury pool, I suppose, so that any eventual trial would still be impacted by the volumes of discussion about Clemens's character or to simply embarrass him into dropping the suite. Either way, it would seem hard to see a way that the information could come into play during the actual trial.
That leaves Clemens's lawsuit right back where it started and, frankly, it still doesn't look so hot. He would have to prove that McNamee didn't inject him with steroids and proving a negative is quite difficult.
(H/T Baseball Musings)



















Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
5-05-2008 @ 8:03PM
the cooker said...
regardless of what the clown at sports law blog says it would still be a jury trial and the men and women of that jury would make the decision if any of this comes into play or not. Your first clue of this clowns bias should have come when he bestowed the words on old Roger "the greatest pitcher of his generation". There are a lot of experts out there (and I am not one of them) that would beg to differ.
Reply
5-05-2008 @ 9:55PM
Herbert Yood said...
Clemens needn't worry. His future is assured. Given his penchant for denial and his track record for fidelity, he is a natural for Hillary Clinton's running mate. He would have no surprises for her.
Reply
5-05-2008 @ 10:46PM
talker said...
Like Roger Clemens,I am still waiting for someone to forensically prove that Harper Lee actually wrote "To Kill A Mockingbird" instead of someone trying to prove that she did not...
Reply
5-06-2008 @ 3:16PM
Brian said...
Roger is the man!!!
For a pitcher,
His sats:
Batting: 1000
Home runs:Everytime
SO:Never
Bat swing: Smooth,Sweet hits the spot
Favorite Pitch: I am 18 and you can sing
BB:Two,everytime
ERA: Every Run A hummer
GP:Alot
GL:0
GW:All
Class of inductee's:Only with Jeremy,Johnny and Chester
Reply