I know it's Bleacher Report, but...

Libel is still libel, is it not?

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/228510-the-103-who-tested-positive-for-steroids-in-2003

 

Well, the "reporter" who produced that list is a fucking moron, if nothing else. That's the same debunked list that was on rotoworld (I think that was the name of the site) a couple months ago.

 

I would take Lvty's word on being a fucking moron.

 

Oh, you are so sweet I could just lick the back of your neck.

 

But its got a question mark in the headline, so that means I dunno what I'm talking about. It's just a guess.

/saidtheguywhowroteit

The comments below it are even more distrubing.

 

It'd be pretty hard for a player to win a libel case in this situation. Most, if not all, of the guys on the list could be considered public figures, which means they'd have to prove actual malice -- that Bleacher Report knew the list was wrong and maliciously published it anyway.

Besides, they might have to prove they didn't use steroids, which might be even more difficult.

(Sorry for the lecture, but I thought it was worth mentioning).

 

Valid points. Maybe it's less libelous than it is just wildly inappropriate to speculate like that.

 

Another example of why Bleacher Report is not and will never be confused with professional, responsible journalism.

 

Except by the people writing for it.

 

Agreed. I don't know about you ... but any resume I see with a Bleacher Report gig on it goes right into the round file.

 

Tell that to Andy.

 

Hey, he's got the whole Marital Arts thing figured out, at least.