I was just going to post this topic.  I domt dis believe clark.  He might very well be right.  His motives are sick.  To boeast his own talk show and like you said, bitterness.  

Pujols is taking legal action against Clark and I would assume InsideSTL. This is bad for McKernan.

artie_fufkin wrote:

"Pujols is taking legal action against Clark"

Screw both of them. If Albert wants to take legal action, file suit against the MLBPA, which fought PED testing, protected the juicers, and made everyone suspect.

Well now I don't think that's smart, but it is interesting that Pujols is going on the offensive.

Clark and Slaten have been dumped by InsideSTL. A week into the their new show. That's record time for Slaten.

APIAD wrote:

I dont know if pujols is doing the right thing but i think insidestl did the right thing by dumpimg their asses.  idk why anyone would hire a couple of out mouths like them anyway.  Who in their right mind would think those shock jocks would work together or even seperate?

Slaten has a large following in St. Louis, and this is not a defense of him, but his most egregious mistake was the Dave Duncan flap. Most of what he says is stupid, but it's not necessarily grounds for going to court.

The same for Jack Clark. Clark is outspoken and people who like to hear "back in my day" stories really like The Ripper. I can see the logic in hiring them. That Clark went off the rails and stated matter-of-factly that Pujols was taking PEDs was unforeseen. 

tkihshbt wrote:

APIAD wrote:

I dont know if pujols is doing the right thing but i think insidestl did the right thing by dumpimg their asses.  idk why anyone would hire a couple of out mouths like them anyway.  Who in their right mind would think those shock jocks would work together or even seperate?

Slaten has a large following in St. Louis, and this is not a defense of him, but his most egregious mistake was the Dave Duncan flap. Most of what he says is stupid, but it's not necessarily grounds for going to court.

The same for Jack Clark. Clark is outspoken and people who like to hear "back in my day" stories really like The Ripper. I can see the logic in hiring them. That Clark went off the rails and stated matter-of-factly that Pujols was taking PEDs was unforeseen. 

i used to listen to slaten alittle bit.  I could stream whatever radio station he was on at that time.  I think he was on in the afternoon and id listen before i went to work.  I wanted to see what the hype was.  My interest was short lived.  He seemed to know very little about the team.  All he seemed to do was bitch recklessly about tlr.  If the radio station wanted to be taken serious idk how they could hire a clown like him.  Also didnt clark get his tit in a ringer in his role with fsmw?  

The best ive heard and ive admittedly heard very little of stl sports radio, was bernie.  Ive never listened to duncan but it seems he gets high praise.  
 

"Clark showed his ass."


I love that expression.

Last edited by artie_fufkin (8/10/2013 9:22 pm)

tkihshbt wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

Clark showed his ass. How many years did Clark work for FSMW and do postgame shows for the Cardinals? How many games did he analyze games in which Pujols was a participant? Clark claims this trainer made these comments before Pujols ever reached St. Louis, but Clark is silent during Pujols' 11 year Cardinal career. Bullshit.

Clark probably assumed that the animosity in St. Louis toward Pujols would insulate him. It didn't. Clark will be a pariah among players, and toxic as an anylyst. He likely just ended his career.

It's just a very flimsy story. Obviously Mihlfeld has known Pujols since he was a teenager, but he took time out of his day to brag about shooting up an unknown A-baller to Jack Clark? Huh? 

good point!

forsberg_us wrote:

A couple of confessions:  1) I know the attorney who wrote this letter, and even briefly worked for this law firm during my first year of law school.  The letter is very consistent with this guy's personality.  2) I laughed my ass off reading the letter.

http://www.stltoday.com/jack-clark-letter-about-steroids-defamation-lawsuit/pdf_897cc97b-46f4-54bc-bd5b-d20b618328ae.html

Fella seems to enjoy his work. I wish I could find a way to put my own smart-assedness to gainful employ.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/jack-clark-retracts-comments-pujols-161005939--mlb.html

That ended a lot better than it could have for Clark. Pujols pulled his lawsuit, claiming he was adequately satisfied with the apology and retraction....

Because he backed down? 

Pujols has an endless supply of money and somehow clark spent all of his.  He never stood a chance, right or wrong.

artie_fufkin wrote:

APIAD wrote:

Because he backed down?

Pujols has an endless supply of money and somehow clark spent all of his. He never stood a chance, right or wrong.

No, because he said something on the air that he knew he could not back up with facts. 

Clark isn't a bright guy to begin with.  Pairing him with Kevin Slaten was a train wreck waiting to happen.  Slaten is a blow hard who thrives on riling up his minions with his vitriol, but he's also smart enough to know just when he needs to pull it back a little to avoid crossing the line. 
 

APIAD wrote:

artie_fufkin wrote:

APIAD wrote:

Because he backed down?

Pujols has an endless supply of money and somehow clark spent all of his. He never stood a chance, right or wrong.

No, because he said something on the air that he knew he could not back up with facts. 

 
Half of sports talk radio wouodnt exist if it had to be back up with facts. From everything ive heard slaten pretty much makes a living riding the edge of what is acceptable. Clark has opened his mouth before. This is pretty much what the station wanted. Clark just pick a unwinnable fight. If he would have said he knew for a fact kerry robinson did ped the outcome would have been different.

True, but there's a huge difference between saying something stupid and saying something slanderous. If Pujols has pressed a libel suit, he would have had a pretty good case. And libel cases are really hard to win, because you have to convince a jury or a judge that there was malicious intent.