Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(KMOV St. Louis)   Jack Clark challenges Pujols to dual lie detector tests over steroid allegations   (kmov.com ) divider line
    More: Followup, Albert Pujols, steroids, performance enhancing, nl mvp, Major League Baseball  
•       •       •

969 clicks; posted to Sports » on 15 Oct 2013 at 7:06 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



83 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-10-15 07:14:09 AM  
Meh...
 
2013-10-15 07:36:45 AM  
They're both assholes, but I tend to pick Clark's side on this one because I also do believe that Pujols took PEDs
 
2013-10-15 07:37:19 AM  
Which is this, slander or libel? I can never keep the two straight.
 
2013-10-15 07:43:43 AM  
I never saw Pujols as a PED user. A guy older than his birth certificate on-the-other-hand....
 
2013-10-15 07:50:04 AM  
Nice try. The burden of proof is on the accuser.
 
2013-10-15 07:59:45 AM  

Hoopy Frood: Nice try. The burden of proof is on the accuser.


Well, Pujols is suing Clark, so he has to prove Clark is lying.
 
2013-10-15 08:06:49 AM  
How is Pujols going to prove he didn't take steroids? It is really hard to prove a negative.

That said, I wouldn't be shocked if Pujols was juicing
 
2013-10-15 08:07:29 AM  
What's really going to be fun is when the guys who supplied the Boston/Philly and Mid-western players with PEDs gets into trouble and tries to save themselves by ratting on their customers.
 
2013-10-15 08:12:12 AM  
I originally read it as Jack Black which was way funnier
 
2013-10-15 08:33:23 AM  
I prefer a death-cage match.
 
2013-10-15 08:44:43 AM  

WTF Indeed: I never saw Pujols as a PED user. A guy older than his birth certificate on-the-other-hand....


Exactly.  I thnk he is probably 3-4 years older than he claims. So, while Albert might be lying about his age, Clark is still a scumbag.  He started this PED crap with Pujols because 10 years ago no one wanted to talk to Clark at all and this was his way in.  Fox Sports Midwest dropped him after he made the same allegations a few years ago on the radio (and the fact he was TERRIBLE on TV).

At the time, it was rumored that the Cardinals smoothed everything over, Clark dropped it, and no one brought it up again.  Clark felt safe rehashing the rumor once AP was gone and the local fans were not is such a forgiving mood with Albert.  Clark misread the situation - again.  He thought the Cards would take care of it if he got in trouble again but they have no reason to take care of this issue and now he is on an island.

And yes, while the purden of proof is on Albert in this case, Clark is still a douchebag who effectively ended his media career in STL (thank god).  This is a stunt, again, so when Albert refuses Clark can claim Albert is hiding something.
 
2013-10-15 08:53:50 AM  

foo monkey: Which is this, slander or libel? I can never keep the two straight.


Something tells me you won't have to worry about it in this case.


/A first baseman doing PEDs under the watchful eye of that great ethicist of baseball, Tony LaRussa? What are the odds?
 
2013-10-15 09:02:35 AM  

WTF Indeed: I never saw Pujols as a PED user. A guy older than his birth certificate on-the-other-hand....


Agreed. Consistent numbers dropping off after his prime. Add, say, three years to his age and it looks even more convincing.
 
2013-10-15 09:34:21 AM  
Jello Biafra wanted for questioning.
 
2013-10-15 09:38:19 AM  
Why not ask a psychic? Lie detector tests don't really mean anything.
 
2013-10-15 09:47:05 AM  

The Smails Kid: Jello Biafra wanted for questioning.


Put your money on the bribes, they always win.
 
2013-10-15 09:50:41 AM  
In the US it can be hard to establish a defamation claim, as compared to the UK or Canada. So even where someone is spreading lies, it's not all that common to see a defamation suit.

Here, Clark claims Pujos cheated but Clark's "proof" of Pujols' juicing is an uncorroborated account of something a third party said a decade ago, where the third party denies saying it. Coupled with the short link between Clark making the claims and money in Clark's pocket (he was trying to attract attention to his new show), I bet Clark thinks he's in trouble.

Hence the "lie detector" stunt.
 
2013-10-15 09:55:29 AM  

foo monkey: Which is this, slander or libel? I can never keep the two straight.


libel.  Libel is prepared, slander is spontaneous.  Contrary to popular opinion, the difference isn't if it was written vs if it was spoken.  A television reporter would be committing a libel if he read off a prepared script.
 
2013-10-15 09:58:25 AM  
I liked baseball better when they were all on PEDs.

Can we please bring the PEDs back?
 
2013-10-15 09:59:17 AM  
If Pujols has juiced, then so has A-Rod and Bonds.
 
2013-10-15 10:11:19 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: I liked baseball better when they were all on PEDs.

Can we please bring the PEDs back?


What makes you think they're clean now?
 
2013-10-15 10:16:21 AM  

Orgasmatron138: Well, Pujols is suing Clark, so he has to prove Clark is lying.


For slander/libel, doesn't he just have to prove that the statements are without evidence?

It's a subtle difference, but it's nearly impossible to prove you've never used steroids in the past.  But you could bring Clark to court and demand he supply evidence for his defamatory comments.  My GED in Wikipedia Law claims that a statement is considered defamatory if you publicly accuse someone of criminal activity (using steroids without a prescription counts) and/or make claims "injurious to another in their trade, business, or profession".  (Pujols could claim that royalties on merchandise, autographs, etc. would be impacted if he was perceived as a cheater.)

From Clark's side, telling the truth is absolute proof against libel/slander.  He can also beat the lawsuit by proving that he had reason to believe it was true.  But if he can't bring forward any evidence (that was in his possession at the time he was making the claims), Pujols should be able to extract some damages from him.  Not that he needs the money.
 
2013-10-15 10:22:11 AM  

chimp_ninja: Orgasmatron138: Well, Pujols is suing Clark, so he has to prove Clark is lying.

For slander/libel, doesn't he just have to prove that the statements are without evidence?

It's a subtle difference, but it's nearly impossible to prove you've never used steroids in the past.  But you could bring Clark to court and demand he supply evidence for his defamatory comments.  My GED in Wikipedia Law claims that a statement is considered defamatory if you publicly accuse someone of criminal activity (using steroids without a prescription counts) and/or make claims "injurious to another in their trade, business, or profession".  (Pujols could claim that royalties on merchandise, autographs, etc. would be impacted if he was perceived as a cheater.)

From Clark's side, telling the truth is absolute proof against libel/slander.  He can also beat the lawsuit by proving that he had reason to believe it was true.  But if he can't bring forward any evidence (that was in his possession at the time he was making the claims), Pujols should be able to extract some damages from him.  Not that he needs the money.


He also has to prove malice, and that's what screws celebrities defamation cases all the time.  If Clark can prove that Milhouse told him that and that Milhouse dealt steroids (not even necessarily a direct smoking gun back to Pujolis), the court could decide that while the issue may have been false, Clark did not have the required malice.
 
2013-10-15 10:26:04 AM  

chimp_ninja: Orgasmatron138: Well, Pujols is suing Clark, so he has to prove Clark is lying.

For slander/libel, doesn't he just have to prove that the statements are without evidence?


The burden of proof for a public figure like Pujols is actually quite high in a slander/libel case.  He not only has to prove that the statements are false, but he has to prove that Clark made the statements knowing they were false or with a reckless disregard for the truth.

So in this case, Pujols would have to prove that his trainer never told Clark that Pujols "juiced", which would be exceptionally difficult.
 
2013-10-15 10:29:01 AM  
Still don't respect pujols after he and his wife were "mad at god" because they didn't get the contract offer they wanted from st. Louis. Fark em.
 
2013-10-15 10:40:52 AM  

The Gentleman Caller: Still don't respect pujols after he and his wife were "mad at god" because they didn't get the contract offer they wanted from st. Louis. Fark em.


The Cards passing on that insane contract looks like a better decision every year.
 
2013-10-15 10:45:56 AM  

EJ25T: ...The Cards passing on that insane contract looks like a better decision every year.


NEVER sign a ball player to a mega-mega-million deal after age 30. I'm looking at you, Robinson Cano.
 
2013-10-15 10:54:33 AM  
Jack Clark needs the publicity more than Pujols at this point.
 
2013-10-15 10:56:58 AM  
Peter told everyone to get their best anal rape jokes ready. After flopping himself, Chris blurted "Hey Brian, who's your favorite baseball player - Albert Pujols?!"

/My 2 cents
 
2013-10-15 10:59:17 AM  
I wonder if Jack Clark could not pass a lie detector test if sarcasm registered as a deception.  The man is made up almost pure snark.

I liked that about him when he was with the 'Roided Rangers.
 
2013-10-15 10:59:29 AM  
While I personally believe that Pujols used steroids (because I believe all power hitters and power pitchers who played major or minor league ball from 1990-2010 used steroids), Jack Clark is an idiot and should shut up.
 
2013-10-15 11:00:42 AM  

EJ25T: The Gentleman Caller: Still don't respect pujols after he and his wife were "mad at god" because they didn't get the contract offer they wanted from st. Louis. Fark em.

The Cards passing on that insane contract looks like a better decision every year.


I'm not willing to give them a pass. They put $200 million on the table in an offer to Pujols. I don't give them credit just because the Angels were stupider.
 
2013-10-15 11:01:48 AM  
I wish I could meet Jack Clark, just so I could shake his hand, look him in the eyes and say, "He was safe."

/1985
//Clark was more responsible for the Cards losing that than Denkinger
///My lawn.  Off it.
 
2013-10-15 11:02:16 AM  
I keep reading Jack Clark as "Will Clark", and Will Clark just seems like the kind of super old-school hardass whom, if threatened with legal action by even Albert Pujols, would show up at Albert's house at 2am wearing nothing but boxers and his favorite slippers while holding a machete and demanding "we settle it right here".
 
2013-10-15 11:29:11 AM  

Killer Cars: I keep reading Jack Clark as "Will Clark", and Will Clark just seems like the kind of super old-school hardass whom, if threatened with legal action by even Albert Pujols, would show up at Albert's house at 2am wearing nothing but boxers and his favorite slippers while holding a machete and demanding "we settle it right here".


Shiat!  I made the same mistake.
 
2013-10-15 11:30:50 AM  

pueblonative: foo monkey: Which is this, slander or libel? I can never keep the two straight.

libel.  Libel is prepared, slander is spontaneous.  Contrary to popular opinion, the difference isn't if it was written vs if it was spoken.  A television reporter would be committing a libel if he read off a prepared script.


The difference really doesn't matter. Just say "defamation." The standard of defense (truth, communication to third party, damages, public/private figure) is the same either way.
 
2013-10-15 11:32:52 AM  

Lost Thought 00: EJ25T: The Gentleman Caller: Still don't respect pujols after he and his wife were "mad at god" because they didn't get the contract offer they wanted from st. Louis. Fark em.

The Cards passing on that insane contract looks like a better decision every year.

I'm not willing to give them a pass. They put $200 million on the table in an offer to Pujols. I don't give them credit just because the Angels were stupider.


That 200 million was an offer after they knew the Marlins/Angels were going to offer more and I would bet there was alot of 'mutual option' years in there.  It was an offer to save face and it worked.  I have no problem with it but they never wanted him for 10 years, the real offer was likely 5-6 for 20-23 per.

Had he taken it we would not have Wacha (draft pick), Beltran (no money or need) and likely Wainwright long term.  Molina was always going to get his money so I don't count that one.  Craig would still be here, they just would have waited a couple year to give him his contract, closer to the end of Holliday's deal than last offseason.
 
2013-10-15 11:35:09 AM  

Yanks_RSJ: chimp_ninja: Orgasmatron138: Well, Pujols is suing Clark, so he has to prove Clark is lying.

For slander/libel, doesn't he just have to prove that the statements are without evidence?

The burden of proof for a public figure like Pujols is actually quite high in a slander/libel case.  He not only has to prove that the statements are false, but he has to prove that Clark made the statements knowing they were false or with a reckless disregard for the truth.

So in this case, Pujols would have to prove that his trainer never told Clark that Pujols "juiced", which would be exceptionally difficult.


Since the trainer in question is willing to testify that he didn't, it makes this a more believable to the jury case.  I don't know anything anout the trainer so I don't know how the defense will try to impeach him, but Clark is going to be smeared much worse than PED use.  They'll bring his ex-wife in to talk about him sleeping around, his former creditors to talk about his bankruptcy, anyone else they can find to say he is untrustworthy.  Once, you make this about believability, you are asking to get destroyed.

\This is pretty much a desparation move by Clark's attorney.
\\This ends with a settlement and probably another bankruptcy.
 
2013-10-15 11:44:04 AM  

Killer Cars: I keep reading Jack Clark as "Will Clark", and Will Clark just seems like the kind of super old-school hardass whom, if threatened with legal action by even Albert Pujols, would show up at Albert's house at 2am wearing nothing but boxers and his favorite slippers while holding a machete and demanding "we settle it right here".


I think Jack Clark has a good bit of that in his personality as well. (I actually recall thinking of the similarities between them when Will was coming into the league, wondering if they were related. They even kind of resemble each other with the unibrow look, though Jack's ugliness is on a whole different plane. And they're both well known to be assholes.)
 
2013-10-15 11:45:18 AM  

EyeballKid: foo monkey: Which is this, slander or libel? I can never keep the two straight.

Something tells me you won't have to worry about it in this case.


/A first baseman doing PEDs under the watchful eye of that great ethicist of baseball, Tony LaRussa? What are the odds?


Yeah, if this sort of stuff was happening on those Cardinals teams, then Tony LaRussa really seems to have fallen asleep at the wheel here.
 
2013-10-15 11:47:29 AM  

pueblonative: libel.  Libel is prepared, slander is spontaneous.  Contrary to popular opinion, the difference isn't if it was written vs if it was spoken


Where do you get that from?  In my experience, if the two haven't been merged into defamation, the distinction is entirely based upon method of publication.

California Civil Code
44 .Libel is a false and unprivileged publication by writing, printing, picture, effigy, or other fixed representation to the eye, which exposes any person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, or which causes him to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency to injure him in his occupation.

46. Slander is a false and unprivileged publication, orally uttered, and also communications by radio or any mechanical or other means which:
 
2013-10-15 11:50:12 AM  

scandalrag: Since the trainer in question is willing to testify that he didn't, it makes this a more believable to the jury case.  I don't know anything anout the trainer so I don't know how the defense will try to impeach him, but Clark is going to be smeared much worse than PED use.  They'll bring his ex-wife in to talk about him sleeping around, his former creditors to talk about his bankruptcy, anyone else they can find to say he is untrustworthy.  Once, you make this about believability, you are asking to get destroyed.


It's not about believability really, "he said/she said" isn't enough to prove libel/slander.  Pujols has to be able to provide concrete evidence that Clark was knowingly spreading false information in a malicious manner.  In essence, he has to prove a negative, that his trainer NEVER told Clark that Pujols juiced.  Without any corroboration, that's going to be nearly impossible.

That doesn't make Clark any more credible, but unless Pujols and his trainer can prove that he never spoke to Clark about ANYTHING, I can't see Pujols winning this.
 
2013-10-15 12:07:23 PM  

Yanks_RSJ: It's not about believability really, "he said/she said" isn't enough to prove libel/slander.  Pujols has to be able to provide concrete evidence that Clark was knowingly spreading false information in a malicious manner.  In essence, he has to prove a negative, that his trainer NEVER told Clark that Pujols juiced.  Without any corroboration, that's going to be nearly impossible.


Keep in mind "malice" in this context means a reckless disregard whether the statement is true or not.  It is difficult, but not impossible.  If Clark didn't do any reasonable investigation or relied on spurious details, that might be sufficient.
 
2013-10-15 12:16:24 PM  

chapman: pueblonative: libel.  Libel is prepared, slander is spontaneous.  Contrary to popular opinion, the difference isn't if it was written vs if it was spoken

Where do you get that from?  In my experience, if the two haven't been merged into defamation, the distinction is entirely based upon method of publication.

California Civil Code
44 .Libel is a false and unprivileged publication by writing, printing, picture, effigy, or other fixed representation to the eye, which exposes any person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, or which causes him to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency to injure him in his occupation.

46. Slander is a false and unprivileged publication, orally uttered, and also communications by radio or any mechanical or other means which:


http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1153

1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander, which is oral defamation.


I don't disagree with you that the distinction is meaningless today with electronic media.  And I don't think anybody's going to argue that the statements that he made didn't damage his reputation.
 
2013-10-15 12:22:23 PM  

chapman: Yanks_RSJ: It's not about believability really, "he said/she said" isn't enough to prove libel/slander.  Pujols has to be able to provide concrete evidence that Clark was knowingly spreading false information in a malicious manner.  In essence, he has to prove a negative, that his trainer NEVER told Clark that Pujols juiced.  Without any corroboration, that's going to be nearly impossible.

Keep in mind "malice" in this context means a reckless disregard whether the statement is true or not.  It is difficult, but not impossible.  If Clark didn't do any reasonable investigation or relied on spurious details, that might be sufficient.


Malice is a major hurdle for Pujols' team, and Clark need not investigate anything if his comments were based on a conversation with Pujols' trainer.

Bear in mind, Pujols' trainer is obviously going to deny saying anything of the sort for a variety of reasons, even if what Clark said is 100% accurate.  That's what makes defamation suits by public figures so difficult to win - without corroboration or documentation, Clark's defense is relatively simple.
 
2013-10-15 12:32:59 PM  

scandalrag: Yanks_RSJ: chimp_ninja: Orgasmatron138: Well, Pujols is suing Clark, so he has to prove Clark is lying.

For slander/libel, doesn't he just have to prove that the statements are without evidence?

The burden of proof for a public figure like Pujols is actually quite high in a slander/libel case.  He not only has to prove that the statements are false, but he has to prove that Clark made the statements knowing they were false or with a reckless disregard for the truth.

So in this case, Pujols would have to prove that his trainer never told Clark that Pujols "juiced", which would be exceptionally difficult.

Since the trainer in question is willing to testify that he didn't, it makes this a more believable to the jury case.  I don't know anything anout the trainer so I don't know how the defense will try to impeach him, but Clark is going to be smeared much worse than PED use.  They'll bring his ex-wife in to talk about him sleeping around, his former creditors to talk about his bankruptcy, anyone else they can find to say he is untrustworthy.  Once, you make this about believability, you are asking to get destroyed.

\This is pretty much a desparation move by Clark's attorney.
\\This ends with a settlement and probably another bankruptcy.


This.  Discovery's a two-way street, and if this lawyer had any confidence in his case he should just be waiting to have a go at Albert in the deposition and filing the SLAPP-Back claim.  That he's actually doing these sorts of stunts says tons about his client's case, his competence, or both.
 
2013-10-15 01:03:24 PM  
Did Pujols juice?  I think a better question is which big hitters didn't juice.
Is Pujols older than he says?  We will see next year after plantar fasciitis surgery is healed up.  If he returns to form in some degree(like players that successfully recover from that condition do), then probably no at his reported age.  If he continues to decline, then probably yes, considering the physical shape he is in.
 
2013-10-15 01:24:15 PM  

bhcompy: Did Pujols juice?  I think a better question is which big hitters didn't juice.
Is Pujols older than he says?  We will see next year after plantar fasciitis surgery is healed up.  If he returns to form in some degree(like players that successfully recover from that condition do), then probably no at his reported age.  If he continues to decline, then probably yes, considering the physical shape he is in.


Hey now. is clean! He never failed a test!
 
2013-10-15 01:27:45 PM  

machoprogrammer: bhcompy: Did Pujols juice?  I think a better question is which big hitters didn't juice.
Is Pujols older than he says?  We will see next year after plantar fasciitis surgery is healed up.  If he returns to form in some degree(like players that successfully recover from that condition do), then probably no at his reported age.  If he continues to decline, then probably yes, considering the physical shape he is in.

Hey now. is clean! He never failed a test!


That should say "my favorite slugger" is clean
 
2013-10-15 01:31:28 PM  

bhcompy: Did Pujols juice?  I think a better question is which big hitters didn't juice.
Is Pujols older than he says?  We will see next year after plantar fasciitis surgery is healed up.  If he returns to form in some degree(like players that successfully recover from that condition do), then probably no at his reported age.  If he continues to decline, then probably yes, considering the physical shape he is in.


It always amazes me that Ortiz, and large chunk of the 04-07 Red Sox, are given a free pass when it comes to questions about juicing.

A team full of guys with a known cheater on the roster and enough empirical proof that the guys on those teams hit better during that time than they did before they got there, or after they left - Ortiz is the prime example.

But as far as Pujols goes, I think it is a birth certificate thing and not PED's.  If you see pictures of him from when he was drafted at 18, he looks ALOT older.  Kind of like LeBron looked far older than 18 when he was drafted.
 
Displayed 50 of 83 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report