I believe the definition of malice in regards to defamation is that there was knowledge that it was false or there was reckless disregard of the truth. Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi; mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA"> Braun could make pretty decent argument that there ESPN recklessly disregarded the truth if in fact all along it was his medication that caused the failed test. This is considering that audio interview that was linked in this thread with T.J Quinn who was one of the two reporters who broke the story admitted that he intentionally left out of his story the statements made by Braun's camp, categorically dismissed any of Braun's claims as false, and basically stated that the fact the MLB has never overturned failed test means that Braun is guilty. No. The ultimate defense for libel and slander is truth. You don't even need to get to the Actual Malice/Reckless Disregard tests. The fact is he tested positive for increased testosterone. He faces a 50 game suspension. His camp acknowledged both to be true. Here's their actual statement. In no way to they deny what happened, only that he will be exonerated as the appeal moves forward. If MLB has already dismissed the positive test and ruled that Braun will not be suspended, and ESPN reported only that he tested positive, then Braun might have a case. If he's exonerated by the MLB (and I'll believe that when I see it), his laywers won't even consider a lawsuit because it would be laughed out of court.