About 14 months ago, former Mets pitcher and current TV broadcaster Ron Darling was sued by his ex-teammate Lenny Dykstra for defamation.
Last year, Darling released an autobiography titled 108 Stitches. In the book, Darling detailed a story of Dykstra yelling racist slurs at Red Sox pitcher Dennis “Oil Can” Boyd as he took the mound during a 1986 World Series game. The former hardnosed center fielder denied the incident, went after Darling on social media and took legal action.
According to NBC Sports Hardball Talk, the suit, however was dismissed after Darling argued Dykstra has done so much damage to his own reputation over the years, that it can’t get any worse.
The court agreed with Darling and provided the following explanation:
Based on the papers submitted on this motion, prior to the publication of the book, Dykstra was infamous for being, among other things, racist, misogynist, and anti-gay, as well as a sexual predator, a drug-abuser, a thief, and an embezzler. Further, Dykstra had a reputation — largely due to his autobiography — of being willing to do anything to benefit himself and his team, including using steroids and blackmailing umpires … Considering this information, which was presumably known to the average reader of the book, this Court finds that, as a matter of law, the reference in the book has not exposed Dykstra to any further “public contempt, ridicule, aversion or disgrace,” or “evil opinion of him in the minds of right-thinking persons,” or “deprivation of friendly intercourse in society.
The Judge offered further details according to NBC Sports:
The nature and seriousness of Dykstra’s criminal offenses, which include fraud, embezzlement, grand theft, and lewd conduct and assault with a deadly weapon, and notably the degree of publicity they received, have already established his general bad reputation for fairness and decency far worse than the alleged racially charged bench-jockeying in the reference could . . .
. . . Given the aforesaid litany of stories concerning Dykstra’s poor and mean-spirited behavior particularly toward various groups including racial minorities, women, and the LGBTQ community—this Court finds that, as a matter of law, the reference cannot “induce an evil opinion of [Dykstra] in the minds of right-thinking persons” or “deprive him of their friendly intercourse in society,” as that “evil opinion” has long existed.
Essentially, the court ruled Dykstra has spent decades publicly ruining his reputation to the point where no one was surprised by Darling’s claim of the center fielder making racist comments. Therefore, defamation is not applicable because his reputation couldn’t have been further slandered.