>Just because you have a shady past doesn't mean you can't sue for slander/libel and win, you see shady journalists who lie all the time win slander/libel cases

>Just because you have a shady past doesn't mean you can't sue for slander/libel and win, you see shady journalists who lie all the time win slander/libel cases all the time. It is actually very rare for anyone to win a slander/libel case, shady journalist or otherwise. The salient issue here isn't his, "shady past", it's the specific behavior he was engaged in. Specifically, he has a documented history as a cheater. If you alleged that he was having sex with farm animals, which is unrelated to his history of cheating, he would have a much easier time proving tangible harm. He is going to have to prove that the recent damage to his reputation was both unfounded and resulted directly from the new allegations of his cheating, and not simply the fact that Carlson and Chess.com publicized his past, documented history of cheating. In short, if you refuse to race against Lance Armstrong because you say he is blood-doping, he's going to have a very difficult time suing for for slander, even if he is not currently engaged in that behavior.