LA Times: Albert Pujols, that suit would fit a sport's needs

[AngelsWin.com]

The Angel, who recently denied an accusation he used performance-enhancing drugs, should make good on his threat of legal action. He might provide baseball with a victory it needs.

Albert Pujols needs to come through in the clutch, and we're not talking home runs or RBIs here.

View the full article

[Angel Oracle]

The comments after the article, albeit small in quantity, = ouch.

[CaliAngel]

^I have learned to take nothing more than a grain of salt from anything that is stated the "comments" section.

[stormngt]

This is such a disingenuous article. Drywer knows Pujols is a public figure.  He knows the libel laws are very difficult for a public figure to prove.  It will be a waste of time and money.

[Ohtaniland]

Jack Clark's stupid comment does nothing to hurt Pujols financially but I do see how this legal action could weigh heavily on his mind for the next couple of slumping seasons.

[stormngt]

PEOPLE!  THERE WILL BE NO LAWSUIT!  ITS ALL BS!

 

There is no libel here and any first year law student can tell you that!  Pujols is a public figure.  In order to prove libel Pujols must PROVE that Clark statements was made in actual malice or reckless disregard of the truth.  That is an exceptionally high barrier to meet.  That is why celebrities and athletes rarely sue for libel.  Not only do have to prove the statement false.  Note only do you have prove it held you in public ridicule, you must prove Clark's statement was an attempt to DELIBERATELY tried to hurt Pujols or  Clark should have known the information was false.  

 

Public figures often threaten to sue, but rarely do because it is so difficult to succeed.

[gotbeer]

Armstrong, party of one, your table is ready.

[mp170.6]

Litigation doesn't solve problems. 

[Schildog]

PEOPLE!  THERE WILL BE NO LAWSUIT!  ITS ALL BS!

 

There is no libel here and any first year law student can tell you that!  Pujols is a public figure.  In order to prove libel Pujols must PROVE that Clark statements was made in actual malice or reckless disregard of the truth.  That is an exceptionally high barrier to meet.  That is why celebrities and athletes rarely sue for libel.  Not only do have to prove the statement false.  Note only do you have prove it held you in public ridicule, you must prove Clark's statement was an attempt to DELIBERATELY tried to hurt Pujols or  Clark should have known the information was false.  

 

Public figures often threaten to sue, but rarely do because it is so difficult to succeed.

 

of course there isn't libel. what clark did was spoken and not written.

[thebloob]

The thing to worry about is why was it said.  How many of these accusations have turned out to be true?  Remember when Jose Canseco was the big liar, turns out that he was the only one speaking the truth.  Didn't that trainer of Bonds go to jail because he wouldn't admit he injected him?  Don't know if it is true of not but I figure a Dominican player coming up in a time when it seems that most guys were doing it, going from a nobody to the best hitter of a decade...  After hearing so many denials turn into lies I wonder about all the players of the past 20 years.  Cmon you know there is at least some doubt.