You are one of the worst offenders. Calling someone a doper isn't an opinion. It is an accusation which causes damage to the athlete's image and reputation. It is libel.
So why hasn't anyone been sued here? It would be easy enough to get an IP address.
It might be easy to get an IP address but get the name of the owner of that address isn’t easy. The ISP needs to be subpoenaed and judges don’t sign off on those things so easily. The Trump administration doesn’t care about the rights of individuals and don’t observe The Constitution so hopefully things don’t change.
Also, to the person that says these anonymous posters are committing libel, the athletes would need to prove that they don’t dope. A key to libel is if someone states something that isn’t true.
Sorry to be pedantic but that isn't quite correct. Libel is publishing anything that discredits a person in the eyes of "right-thinking (decent folks, not right wing) members of society". There would also have to proof of damage to the reputation of the person libelled. The law takes a very liberal view of this on social media sites. I can't recall the actual provision in US law but it substantially exempts public sites' owners from claims made by those commenting on their sites. I doubt anyone has been sued for making doping allegations on a site like this.
Probably helps to know what libel is. The opinion that given the state of the sport and prior history that an athlete is doping is an opinion, and in all likelihood a very correct one. Libel would be fabricating a claim that you saw so and so engaged in doping.
I'm confused, can you give an opinion that you suspect someone of doping & be immune from a lawsuit? (e.g. "I suspect so & so of doping became he/she improved too quickly in a short period of time").
This subject came up one time before & I believe an attorney help with the issue ("Precious Roy?").
Sorry to be pedantic but that isn't quite correct. Libel is publishing anything that discredits a person in the eyes of "right-thinking (decent folks, not right wing) members of society". There would also have to proof of damage to the reputation of the person libelled. The law takes a very liberal view of this on social media sites. I can't recall the actual provision in US law but it substantially exempts public sites' owners from claims made by those commenting on their sites. I doubt anyone has been sued for making doping allegations on a site like this.
It is cowardice to come to a public forum and publicly accuse of an athlete of doping while hiding behind anonymity.
If you're going to damage an athlete's image and reputation without having any evidence, the least you can do is put your real full name on the record.
Wait - do you mean, anyone accusing an athlete of doping, or anyone accusing an athlete of doping without evidence? Or without proof beyond reasonable doubt?
It is cowardice to come to a public forum and publicly accuse of an athlete of doping while hiding behind anonymity.
If you're going to damage an athlete's image and reputation without having any evidence, the least you can do is put your real full name on the record.
So why hasn't anyone been sued here? It would be easy enough to get an IP address.
It might be easy to get an IP address but get the name of the owner of that address isn’t easy. The ISP needs to be subpoenaed and judges don’t sign off on those things so easily. The Trump administration doesn’t care about the rights of individuals and don’t observe The Constitution so hopefully things don’t change.
Also, to the person that says these anonymous posters are committing libel, the athletes would need to prove that they don’t dope. A key to libel is if someone states something that isn’t true.
Not quite correct. Slander or libel is anything that can be seen as damaging of reputation. That it is true is a defence. Also, the person accused of doping isn't required to prove anything. It is the person making the accusation who has to prove it if they are to use the defence of truth. But other defences are fair comment and discussion in the public interest - and both can apply to discussion on sites like these.
However, the main point is that sites like these have free speech protections in law, and the kinds of doping claims made here aren't regarded as significant enough to warrant a response by the athletes concerned. There have been other kinds of allegations made - usually conduct issues concerning American athletes and coaches - that have been removed, presumably on the basis of possible legal action.
But the only people getting agitated about doping discussion are some of the fans on this site. We don't hear from the athletes. They live with it, as part of what the sport is about.
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
The court - judge and jury - decides this. It isn't "liberal" or "right wing" but the views of the person on the "Clapham Omnibus" (the common law standard), meaning ordinary folks without an axe to grind.
Probably helps to know what libel is. The opinion that given the state of the sport and prior history that an athlete is doping is an opinion, and in all likelihood a very correct one. Libel would be fabricating a claim that you saw so and so engaged in doping.
I'm confused, can you give an opinion that you suspect someone of doping & be immune from a lawsuit? (e.g. "I suspect so & so of doping became he/she improved too quickly in a short period of time").
This subject came up one time before & I believe an attorney help with the issue ("Precious Roy?").
You are correct, that if you soften the claim so that you are effectively saying you suspect doping is possible in a given instance but don't claim it as a fact it can reduce its potential to be seen as defamatory or libellous. Part of what allows this is an environment, such as we see in this sport, in which it is acknowledged as a fact that doping is part of the sport, so the comment falls within the category of fair comment or being in the public interest, as an issue of justifiable public concern.
This post was edited 54 seconds after it was posted.