Jones Sues BALCO

She's suing Conte, not BALCO.

she has a rather strong case. it is up to the defendant in a defamation suit to prove the veracity of their claims

The IRS has seized several checks that Jones made out to Conte. This evidence alone is completely discrediting to Jones, who says that she met Conte only once. Perhaps she (and the rest of the world) has forgotten this fact, but she is stupid as hell for trying to bring this lawsuit. All Conte has to do is walk into court with the IRS checks, say, "I'm already screwed, so I'm going to cooperate with the pigs all I can," and ask her, "Now, what did you write me this check for?"

It's all over for Jones anyway. This may be the only way she gets any money from T&F in the future. My bet is on Conte. Jones is going to regret this lawsuit.

Why is everyone so quick to side with Conte-I think it is a crazy. I don't pretend to know if Jones is guilty or not-But I know that Conte is doing everything he can to swith the focus elsewhere. I don't buy this-"he has nothing to loose-so he is doing the right thing now and cooperating" bogus. He looks as sleazy as he acts. Plus-he is still saying that Marions ex-husband was innocent-HA!!!!!!!

TrackFan rob wrote:

Why is everyone so quick to side with Conte-I think it is a crazy. I don't pretend to know if Jones is guilty or not-But I know that Conte is doing everything he can to swith the focus elsewhere.

Huh? How is going public about Marion Jones--an athlete to whom Conte distributed illegal performance enhancing drugs--switching the focus elsewhere? The only reason that there is "focus" on Conte is because his customers are big names athletes like Jones. If Conte was busted for selling steroids to guys who pump iron three times a week at 24-hour Fitness in San Mateo, do you think we'd all be talking about him?

If Conte made claims about other steroid pushers who were working with their own athletes, now that would be switching the focus elsewhere. But when Conte is talking about the athletes with whom he did business, he is keeping the focus very much on himself--which, for whatever reason, appears to be where he likes it.

We don't honestly know if he distributed them to her is all I should have said....I am retarded I guess, but I still can't say for sure if she is or isnt guilty.

I'm not quick to side with Conte. But lets face it, IF Marion is a doper, is she really any better than Conte?

Frankly, the evidence is pretty damning (at best). It may legally be on Conte to prove his comments, but he can still discredit of the plaintiff.

Conte came off as smug (to put it politely), but Jones has been ridiculous regarding this whole thing.

Frankly, I think most people just want to know the damn truth. It's not unobvious. She's married a cheater, had a child with a cheater, and been coached by a cheater. WTF else do you need to build a case?

Conte may be the equivalent of nailing Capone on tax evasion, but shit, it's still something...

ace_caliph wrote:

she has a rather strong case. it is up to the defendant in a defamation suit to prove the veracity of their claims

Well, not exactly. Truth is an affirmative defense to a defamation claim, but the plaintiff has the burden to prove all of the elements of her claim. Also, since Jones is obviously a public figure, the legal standards set out in New York Times v. Sullivan, Hustler v. Falwell, etc. will raise the threshold that Jones will have to meet. Still, the nature of the allegations will probably make this a straight-up credibility case. Jones's best bet, I suspect, is that Conte will default, put up token defense to this civil suit, or take the Fifth during discovery and trial to avoid self-incrimination. Conte has a lot of other problems to deal with, and Jones's attorneys are probably counting on that.

My understanding is that the burden of proof rests on the plaintiff IF the defamatory statement is a matter of public concern. Because neither party has proof of anything, whoever is assigned the burden of proof is probably going to lose the case. If everything I've said so far is correct, then the outcome of this case will depend largely on whether the judge determines the issue to be a matter of public concern.

On the other hand, I know shit about law so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

iflyboats wrote:

On the other hand, I know shit about law so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

O.K. You're wrong.

The bottom line on this, though, is that it would be an interesting lawsuit if Conte had signicant assets to protect and the resources to defend himself. As it is, I doubt that Conte has significant assets right now, and whatever assets he does have will probably be burned up on his criminal defense or seized under I.R.S. authority (for back taxes and penalties) or civil forfeiture laws (as the fruits of unlawful drug trafficking). Jones and her lawyers are probably looking for a quick, essentially uncontested judgment that they will trumpet as vindication. She'll probably never get a dime from Conte, and almost certainly won't get enough to cover her legal expenses in the suit.

aside from the fact that she's blatantly lying, and is as guilty as sin, I can't see how she has much of a case - it's a well known fact that you cannot prove a negative (i.e. you can easily prove something did happen but you cannot prove something didn't). If this is all about Conte's comments that he saw her injecting herself, how the hell is she going to disprove that beyond all doubt?

The thing that jumped out at me when I first read about this is that she has SIX lawyers. She can't be doing it for money because there will be none left after fees for a stable of lawyers.

and before the idiots come out of the wordwork...the article I read yesterday said she had six lawyers while the one referenced above says five.

Oldguy.

NYTimes, Hustler are both publications. The findings in those cases are applicable to the burden of proof with respect to media, not individuals.

The burden of proof with respect to statements made by individual is not as high, even if the target is a public figure. Your legal analysis is heading down the wrong path.

Why doesn't Tim Montgomery sue the San Franscisco Chronicle? It published what purported to be his grand jury testimony in which he admitted to taking a spectular cocktail of performance enhancing drugs. He admitted getting these drugs from Conte. Surely, this must all be a fiction on SFC's behalf, so why doesn't Tiny Tim sue? I say it is a fiction. It must be. After all, why does Marion Jones, who on TV interviews in the past (in the UK) has spoken out against drugs and how she opposes them, live with this guy? How can she get up every morning, look her clean face in the mirror, only to find a self-confessed drug cheat in her kitchen? I can't believe such a principled woman as Marion J. would share quality space with someone as immoral as Tim Montgomery's grand jury testimony would seem to indicate. What is taking Tiny Tim so long?

I love it when lawyers say "Hustler v. Falwell" with a straight face.

Was the case in fact "Hustler vs. Falwell" or "Larry Flynt vs. Falwell?"

The case was officially "Hustler Magazine and Larry C. Flynt, Petitioners v. Jerry Falwell" better known as Hustler v Falwell.

And Jones has NO case, she has the burden of proof, and can't prove anything. She's a public figure too, which only hurts her. The only thing that would win her the case would be if Conte said, "I lied, Marion is clean"