opinion

Outrage has been expressed from many quarters, including this newspaper, regarding the revelations of "widespread" use of steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs by dozens of major league baseball players in a report issued last week by former U.S. Senator George Mitchell ("One more chance for a tarnished game," Dec. 15).

A few of the players have come forward to admit their use, some have denied it, and the vast majority have remained silent so far. But all of their reactions have been virtually devoid of any protestations of libel.

Players pursuing such claims would face monumental, but not insuperable, obstacles. A suing ballplayer would have to prove that statements about him in the Mitchell report were false. Claimants who pursue libel litigation put their lives, including their character, at issue. It often leads to exposure of other unpleasant facets of their lives. They are subjected to intensive investigation. And the costs of libel litigation can be enormous.

In many cases, those making defamatory statements are clothed with what are known as legal "privileges," or justification that bars litigation. Statements made in government reports or as part of judicial proceedings usually are immune. However, the Mitchell report was not part of any official government inquiry, but was commissioned by Major League Baseball.

Ballplayers may have to confront other obstacles as well. Under the rule known as the New York Times standard, "public figures" cannot prevail in libel cases unless they show that the statements were made with knowing falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. Satisfying this high standard is usually difficult.

It is unlikely that many, if any, of the accused players will pursue lawsuits. As is true for most libel claimants, the odds are stacked heavily against them. Even Pete Rose wouldn't wager on their chances of success.

Marshall H. Tanick is a Minneapolis attorney who handles defamation litigation.