Jack Clark: Pujols is a juicer. I know for a fact.

Here's a Cardinals 2001 spring training preview. It makes no mention of Pujols:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/mlb/2001/spring_training/news/2001/02/15/cardinals_preview/

 

Sure it does, right where you'd expect to find it:

Prospects to Watch

LHP Bud Smith -- Smith was downight dominant in 2000, putting him on the brink of advancing to the majors. After posting a combined 17-2 record --ncluding two no-hitters -- in stops in Class AA (Arkansas) and Class AAA (Memphis), the southpaw likely will start this season in Memphis. He should be a fixture in the Cardinals' rotation soon after.

3B Albert Pujols -- By dealing Tatis, the Cardinals showed a trememdous amount of faith in the future promise of Pujols. The 21-year-old hit .324 with 17 homers in Class A, although he struggled in a short stint in Memphis. While not ready in 2001, Pujols is the heir apparent for the third-base job while the Cardinals keep the seat warm for one year.

 

I said earlier that there's no way Clark knows for a fact but I don't see how Pujols can burn Clark with this lawsuit he hasn't filed yet. How does Pujols prove something wasn't said?

 

If you believe Braun was clean than you believe the test was tampered with as there is no other way it comes back positive. Yes, that is what Phony was arguing.

Braun winning the appeal was the correct one, procedures were not followed but to believe the test was tampered means you believe in unicorns.

 

Pujols might be innocent. I suspect he isn't, but honestly, I'm beyond the point of caring anymore.

What grabbed me was Pujols invocations to God and Jesus Christ. In one statement, he anguished, "how could I do that to God?"

Uh, sanctimonious much, Albert? Should I start working on your crucifix or should I let Pontius Pilate do it?

 

Clark's co-host is probably wondering what the hell just happened and how did he get caught up in it.

 

Wouldn't a lawsuit open up Pujols to all kinds of discovery? Also, what harm can Pujols prove was done by this slander?

I just know this can't be true because both Posnanski and Verducci have written Albert is the game's clean shining hope.

 

The first part of your statement shows why Clark's behavior is disgraceful. I just don't think Clark's source denying the whole thing would be enough for Pujols to win and it is damn hard to prove he has never used even if it is true. It is also a challenge to prove harm to his reputation, though these types of accusation clearly do cause harm.

If Pujols does go forward with the lawsuit, but doesn't win, people like A_QB will use that as "evidence" of his guilt. If he doesn't go forward with it, again, people like A_QB will say he must be guilty or he would have done everything possible to protect his good name. Given how many people in the PED discussion have no standards whatsoever in their desperate crusade to bring down as many players as they can regardless of actual evidence, Pujols really can't win on this one.

 

Whether he goes forward with the suit or not and whether he wins or not - and he probably won't for the simple fact that it's almost impossible to win one of these - is irrelevant to my point regarding St. Albert.

 

And what other theory would support that conclusion?

Cut the bullshit, we all know what really happened. Braun got caught dead to rights testing positive, his lawyers got him off on a technicality, Braun then blatantly lied some more and shamelessly played the character assassination card against a guy who was just doing his job, then he got busted AGAIN, and when presented with the evidence, meekly conceded, stuck his tail between his legs, and went off to hide for a while.

And without any apology for the character assassination thing.

 

Jack Clark is no longer working at the sports talk station. I know for a fact.

His co-host Kevin Slaten has a long history of being a sports talk douche bag.