Former West Indies captain Sir Clive Lloyd is taking the Guyana Chronicle to court, his lawyer Ralph Thorne confirmed Tuesday night.

Lloyd claims that the newspaper attributed to him, disparaging comments made about all-rounder Jason Holder, himself now a former West Indies captain. However, the man who is also known as the 'Big Cat' insists that he did not speak to the reporter employed by the Guyanese media house.

The offending story published on March 13, was headlined ‘Holder has outlived his usefulness in the position, says Lloyd’ over the byline of Rajiv Bisnauth, who has subsequently been suspended. The newspaper has also apologized for their publication of the story.

However, Thorne revealed on the Mason & Guest talk show in Barbados last night that they were proceeding with legal action against the newspaper.

“I am representing Sir Clive Lloyd in association with Guyanese counsel and if the Chronicle or anybody at the Chronicle is hearing let them understand that we are pressing ahead with the case on behalf of one of the great West Indians of the last 100 years,” Ralph Thorne.

Read more at SportsMax

Full Story

The Chronicle apologized and retracted their story. Lloyd will not win anything.

When it comes to money, Lloyd goes nuts.

In reply to Norm

Sir Big PU-C needs the money

Tons of people have said this...If Big PU-C had said this then he would have been correct....for once

In reply to Narper

Lloyd is saying that he never had an interview the Chronicle reporter, veteran Avenesh Ramzan. Ramzan has been a good reporter for over a decade.

We will see where this goes.

In reply to Norm

After public apology that's the only reason, i can see him suing the media company...
He probably in need of a few greenbacks...

In reply to Narper

When that India pullout fiasco, I was told by no one but himself that Big Bravo, and Pollard would never wear the Maroon again over the phone by the big Pu-C all thanks to Jaip (RIP) was that a lie too?

Your reactions is an indication of the low standards and unprofessionalism of the region.

That is not journalism it is a straight and deliberate lie that people with honor and dignity should abhor, instead you guys are attacking the victim.

I mean what was he thinking, didnt he expect Lloyd to read the article or someone to at least bring it to his attention?

In reply to Wally-1

After Chronicle publicly acknowledged they were wrong and apologized, do you think suing is the right resolution? In many cases once statements are retracted,a good handshake usually suffices...

In reply to Wally-1

Lloyd's apparent grievance is not the statement about JHo's captaincy, but that he never said such things to the Chronicle reporter.


After the newspaper apologized, retracted the article and fired the veteran reporter?

If Lloyd persists, he will have to prove his case (probably easy) and provide a basis for damages. The latter will be quite interesting, given the actions already taken by the newspaper.

You cannot un-hear or un-read what has already been said or written. A paper can cynically publish a falsehood and then apologize, knowing that the words, once published cannot truly be recalled. That is why there is such a great burden for responsible media to be scrupulous about the truth. An apology does not wipe out the effect of a libel. A wronged person can, of course, choose to be gracious and withdraw a complaint, but they are not obligated to.

In reply to Cameron

We await Lloyd's claims regarding said "effect".

In reply to Cameron

Should Sanasie go ahead with his lawsuit against the recent commentary team? They retracted their comments on air numerous times...asking an answer?

Some do not believe in reputations

In reply to Norm

Have to agree. It's not easy to prove "actual malice" in these cases when there is an apology and retraction of the offending statement.

In reply to Kay

If you injure a man and apologize, does that mean that the matter is ended?

In reply to Kay
You are wrong. The harm is already done. An apology does not erase the harm done to a person's goodwill and reputation.

This is not a difficult case at all for Sir Clive to win and most likely will be settled out of court.

...but did Holder outlive his usefulness as a Captain and can that be proven in court?

He was replaced. Was Lloyd against the move?

In reply to Curtis

Where is the relevance to the case in point?

In reply to Star

What harm?

In reply to Cameron

Leff dem.

In reply to Norm

You should stick to engineering if that is what you do

In reply to sudden

Your usual great discussion skills, I see, where the only intelligence you seem to have is your ability to insult.

Since you stepped in, tell me what harm could that have been done? We are all familiar with the circumstances here. Neither Star nor you have produced any response yet.

In reply to Norm

Figure it out

In reply to sudden

Good. You were just blowing hot air.

In reply to Norm

Yep

In reply to Norm

Clive's lawyer was on The Mason and Guest show, along with another lawyer who is handling the Bowne case, they both commented on the libel case of Clive, and is sending a message to media, these people are our heroes, don't defame them.
An apology is not a legal defence, it is just admission to the false claim.

In reply to Norm

Are you for real?

In reply to openning

You are correct.

Move to the head of the class.

In reply to Star

Just answer, please.

In reply to openning

Case specific harm will have to be demonstrated. How do you quantify, or even identify, "heroes"?

The reporter wrote that Lloyd said the Holder was no longer suitable for WI captaincy.

Even if that (that Holder was not suitable for WI captaincy) was a lie (it was not), how much harm would that have caused Lloyd? Did Lloyd lose anything tangible (job opportunities, publishing opportunities, etc) as a result?

The wrong was apparently that the newspaper reported that Lloyd said that Holder was unsuitable for WI captaincy. They fixed that. If Lloyd was harmed, he will need to prove it.

In reply to Norm

I am representing Sir Clive Lloyd in association with Guyanese counsel and if the Chronicle or anybody at the Chronicle is hearing let them understand that we are pressing ahead with the case on behalf of one of the great West Indians of the last 100 years,” Ralph Thorne.