Tennis star Rafael Nadal is suing former French minister for health and sport, Roselyn Bachelot, for defamation, after Bachelot accused Nadal of taking performance enhancing drugs on the French television talk show Le Grand 8. Nadal did not play tennis for seven months in 2012 due to multiple tennis-related injuries. According to Bachelot, the “real” reason for Nada’s absence was, “Probably due to a positive doping test” (The Associated Press). Nadal is suing Bachelot for defamation because he believed that Bachelot’s words would damage his image as one of the best tennis players in the world. Nadal is the petitioner in the case while Bachelot is the respondent. In other words, Nadal is the individual bringing a lawsuit upon Bachelot, and Bachelot is the individual defending her statement. The key issue at state in this case is libel because Nadal believes that Bachelot’s statement was false and defamatory to his character. …show more content…
In New York Times v. Sullivan, it was determined that public citizens had to prove actual malice when suing another individual for libel. Since Nadal is a popular athlete, he could be deemed as a public citizen. In order to determine exactly what type of public citizen that Nadal is, the Supreme Court case Gertz v. Robert Welch has the answer. This case determined that there are three types of public figures: all purpose, limited purpose, and involuntary. Since Nadal is well known in the world around him, then he could be classified as an all purposes public figure. Therefore, in order for Nadal to prove that he was libeled, he would have to prove that there was actual malicious intent on behalf of the accused. If he was a private citizen, then all he would have to prove would be negligence on behalf of the alleged