Robbie Alomar

f_t, does this mean if, say, the Boston Globe reports that Brett Myers slapped his wife on a Boston street in front of onlookers, then the AP has to go get independent confirmation to run with it?

Because if that's the case, there's been a lot of shortcut-taking being done over recent years.

 

No, I've run the desk at AP. The onus is on getting it right and making absolutely sure it's right before filing it on the wire. I'd be extremely careful with this story.

 

I wouldn't think that there is any risk of infection if they stopped having unprotected sex 3 years ago. The Complaint doesn't say whether they have had protected sex since February 2006.

Per the complaint, they lived together for 2 1/2 years after he disclosed that he had AIDS. They moved to a new city together and only stopped living together about 4 months ago. Was she so distressed that she had to move away or get out of the relationship? Doesn't appear to be the case.

Seems very money-grabby to me.

 

Someone with more knowledge of libel can correct me here, but, say Alomar doesn't have AIDS and sues the woman, and the Daily News and Post for printing the stories. If other publications have printed the falsehood, they too could be guilty of libel. The fact that you're simply repeating a false statement that appeared originally in a different publication doesn't get you off the hook, right? Not that that has anything to do with why the story might not be appearing anywhere; it could just as easily be for...squeamish reasons.

 

Definitely have to be careful with this one.. but if you're simply reporting the contents of a lawsuit, which is public record, that's not libel. There's no malicious intent. If it was libel to report on a lawsuit, everyone found not guilty in court could then sue, I think.

 

Be interesting to hear if there was any extortion attempted ahead of the lawsuit.

This could get very, very ugly.

 

Ah yes, good point, since the details come from the suit, not just from an interview with her. Guess I can rule out law school.

 

by the end of the day...

 

Globe & Mail posted the story about 20 minutes ago

http://sports.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090211.wsptalomar0211/GSStory/GlobeSports/home

 

the suit papers are on Smoking Gun, so its a legal document.
What needs to be included is:
The allegations have not been proven in court.

And Alomar's reputation for sexual proclivities were much talked-about during his tenure in Toronto - and it seemed common knowledge among ball writers that he swung both ways

The suit alleges that Alomar claims he was raped by two men in New Mexico. I think there might be more to that story.

 

Yeah, the AP was being careful with it and did some due diligence.

The lawsuit, filed Jan. 30 and transferred to U.S. District Court on Wednesday, contains accusations that could not be corroborated but portray Alomar as someone who demanded sex without a condom despite showing obvious signs of HIV.

Also:

The lawsuit does not say why Dall continued to have unprotected sex with Alomar. Dall said the couple lived together until last year.

 

Had ESPN, in particular, managed to land this story first, I'm sure we would have been subject to multiple "Outside The Lines" on Alomar by now.