Craaaaazy Excerpts from Donaghy's (upcoming?) Book

[jdpapa3]

Some of those excerpts have too much detail not to have a ring of truth.

Such as Mikki Moore committing the foul that was too blatant to ignore, settling the bet.

Hahhaha. Got a great laugh out of that.

[crownsy]

Well, the truth is an absolute defense against libel and slander.  So if he tells  the truth, there's no liability.

right, but you have to prove that your assertion is the truth in court.

Chances of his fellow ref's backing up his stories is about the same as a Popsicles chance in hell

[the_Bird]

Donaghy's character is at the absolute bottom for trying to rat on everyone. Wanting to take everyone down with him is completely dishonorable.

If I can't have cookies, no one gets cookies. What a jerk.

Snitches get stitches.

But I've heard he already got some.

Carmello, is that you?

[footey]

Well, the truth is an absolute defense against libel and slander.  So if he tells  the truth, there's no liability.

right, but you have to prove that your assertion is the truth in court.

Chances of his fellow ref's backing up his stories is about the same as a Popsicles chance in hell

Actually, I would think the burden of proof is on the NBA to show that they were false hoods, and were damaging.  If they cannot meet that burden, they have no case for libel.

[Brickowski]

Well, it depends.  If the litigants are private, the defendant has the burden of proving truth, since defendant is raising an affirmative defense.

However, both the Supreme Court and the Massachusetts SJC have said that in cases where the publication is of "legitimate public concern," the plaintiff bears the burden of proving the publication false.

I should think that the issue of whether NBA officials fix games (whether for profit or at the direction of the league office) is a matter of public concern.

To my knowledge, no one has sued Jose Canseco over his book exposing steriod use in baseball.  When the book came out Canseco was universally villified-- but guess what?  It was all true.

[crownsy]

Well, the truth is an absolute defense against libel and slander.  So if he tells  the truth, there's no liability.

right, but you have to prove that your assertion is the truth in court.

Chances of his fellow ref's backing up his stories is about the same as a Popsicles chance in hell

Actually, I would think the burden of proof is on the NBA to show that they were false hoods, and were damaging.  If they cannot meet that burden, they have no case for libel.

your right of course, but i was assuming the Ref's would toe the company line, take the stand and say "he's lying, i've never done x, y and z"

which would mean tim has to prove they are lying.

[Brickowski]

No, as I said in my previous post, assuming these matters are of "public concern," the NBA has to prove Donaghy is lying if it wants to win a libel suit against him.

[Amonkey]

Well, it depends.  If the litigants are private, the defendant has the burden of proving truth, since defendant is raising an affirmative defense.

However, both the Supreme Court and the Massachusetts SJC have said that in cases where the publication is of "legitimate public concern," the plaintiff bears the burden of proving the publication false.

I should think that the issue of whether NBA officials fix games (whether for profit or at the direction of the league office) is a matter of public concern.

To my knowledge, no one has sued Jose Canseco over his book exposing steriod use in baseball.  When the book came out Canseco was universally villified-- but guess what?  It was all true.

I agree with the Canseco line, but at that time baseball was already at a down roll spiral.  I think the NBA has some big powerful lawyers, and whether they're right or not, they're gonna intimidate the guy to drop it.  Also, remember that Donaghy is also all about money, and something tells me that the NBA has paid a significant amount for the book not to be released.

[Brickowski]

Big media companies have fancy lawyers too, and if one of them expects to make a ton of money on the book, it will be published.

And there is nothing to prevent Donaghy, when he gets out of prison, from publishing it himself.  Anyone can start a blog, and once the words are out there, it's too late for the NBA.  In fact, it's probably too late already given what's up on the web now. 

Maybe the NBA can strong arm ESPN and others to suppress the story, but it can't strong arm everyone, and if the NY Times or the Washington Post thinks Donaghy is credible, his story will be told.

[nickagneta]

Let's remember that for all the pooh-poohing that MLB did over the book before it came out and then the blitzkrieg of propaganda they spread about it shortly after his book was published, they never brought a lawsuit against him. Very telling in my eyes right from the beginning and why I believed him from the very beginning.

The NBA is, I am sure, threatening every publishing house that is even taking a sniff at this book but SOMEONE WILL publish this book and then let's see how many libel suits get filed. If none, we have our answer.

Another telling sign would be if the other refs come out calling Donaghy a liar and Donaghy challenges them to take lie detector tests and they turn down the offer, that would be telling as well. I know lie detector tests can be unreliable and are not allowed in court but it would be interesting to see who would be willing to take one, who wouldn't, and if they did what the results would be.

[crownsy]

No, as I said in my previous post, assuming these matters are of "public concern," the NBA has to prove Donaghy is lying if it wants to win a libel suit against him.

right, i understood that.

My point was that the NBA will have no problem doing that, assuming the Ref's, there employee's, are willing to assert under oath that nothing tim wrote in the book is factual.

The NBA could also disprove (if tim is in fact lying) by showing tape of the listed games. Tim contends that they went "long stretches, often as much as four minutes from opening tip" at specific games he worked without calling a foul. If the NBA tape archive can show that fouls were called before that in games he worked, that would only add to the other ref's testimony that tim is full of it.

I'm not saying the book is true or not, im just saying the NBA isn't as unable to prove liable as has been asserted here (assuming they are in fact telling the truth and have the above evidence, which should be easy to produce, to show it.)

[Brickowski]

The other refs can say what they want under oath, and so can Donaghy.  The question is, which testimony will the jury believe?

Right now, having watched the NBA for 30 years, I believe Donaghy.

The NBA will have a better chance of winning its case if, during voir dire, its lawyers can exclude any juror who has actually watched an NBA game.

[crownsy]

The other refs can say what they want under oath, and so can Donaghy.  The question is, which testimony will the jury believe?

Right now, having watched the NBA for 30 years, I believe Donaghy.

The NBA will have a better chance of winning its case if, during voir dire, its lawyers can exclude any juror who has actually watched an NBA game.

right, but that's you. If im an average juror (who may or may not be a basketball fan. One would think the NBA's lawyers would use thier no-cause jury challenges to remove avid basketball fans.) Then i would think people would be more inclined to think the felon is lying when what, 30 other people? (unsure of NBA ref pool size) testify he's full of it?

A reasonable person would most likely believe the group over the single person.

[Brickowski]

Who knows what a juror will believe?  A reasonable juror would also know that those 30 refs have a vested interest in debunking Donaghy's testimony.

Meanwhile, Donaghy's lawyers will, in discovery, go after all of the NBA's records on officiating matters and will seek corroborating testimony from ex-NBA officials, several of whom have been highly critical of the league.

[Amonkey]

Who knows what a juror will believe?  A reasonable juror would also know that those 30 refs have a vested interest in debunking Donaghy's testimony.

Meanwhile, Donaghy's lawyers will, in discovery, go after all of the NBA's records on officiating matters and will seek corroborating testimony from ex-NBA officials, several of whom have been highly critical of the league.

I dont think a case like this would actually get to court.  I think there would be some kind of settlement before anything gets to court.