AUGUST
9th, 2013-Well, here we go again.
Former
ML outfielder-first baseman Jack Clark, in his first week of
co-hosting an afternoon drive show on St. Louis's WGNU (920 AM),
decided to stir the PED pot a bit.
After
his partner on the show, Kevin Slaten, mentioned the possibility that
former Cardinals first baseman, current LA Angels' DL denizen and
living legend Albert Pujols had used steroids in the past,
Clark responded in the resoundingly affirmative:
“I
know for a fact he was. The trainer that worked with him, threw him
batting practice from Kansas City, that worked him out every day,
basically told me that's what he did.”
The
four-time ML All-Star Clark, who played with the Cards from 1985-87,
has now twice made this claim in his first week on the show.
Slaten didn't even finish his statement about Pujols' alleged use of
steroids before Clark jumped in. Commenting on trainer Chris
Mihlfeld, who worked with Pujols (as well as Jason Grimsley,
who was busted after being caught shipping PEDs directly to his own
home), Clark said the following:
“(Mihlfeld)
had told me what he was doing with 'Poolie' (Pujols, in lame baseball
nickname-speak). He threw him batting practice, worked him out, shot
him up, all that stuff.”
OK.
Let's start with the character of the man making said statement.
Clark
was not one to shy away from expressing his opinions during his MLB
career. For that matter, he seemed to engender negative feelings from
his teammates from time to time.
In
his time with the San Francisco Giants in the early-80's, Clark often
complained about the playing conditions at old Candlestick Park. In
fairness, I remember The 'Stick: it was cold, windy and damp.
Frequently. But this sort of attitude, along with concerns from
manager Frank Robinson and the front office that he was,
perhaps, 'milking' his injuries, led to his trade to the Cards in
1985 for SS Jose Uribe, pitcher Dave LaPoint and 1B-OFs
David Green and Gary Rajsich.
In
1987, Clark had managed to get on SS Ozzie Smith's bad side.
In 1988 he had signed a two-year contract with the New York Yankees,
but while he enjoyed playing for manager Billy Martin, he
didn't much care for Martin's replacement Lou Pinella. At the
end of '88, he was on his way out of The Big Apple and heading to San
Diego, traded with Pat Clements for Ps Lance McCullers and
Jimmy Jones, and OF Stan Jefferson. He took one last
shot at NY and the American League, in general, saying “I hate that
damn league. Every game lasts 3 ½ to 4 hours. No wonder the fans are
bored over there.”
In
San Diego, Clark's newest target for criticism was OF Tony Gwynn
(of all people). Clark felt that Gwynn was more concerned about his
batting average than he was about winning, and that he often bunted
in situations which seemed inappropriate in order to preserve said
average. “No one bothers Tony Gwynn because he wins batting titles,
but the Padres finish fourth or fifth ever year”, said Jack the
Ripper, ostensibly a nickname gained from his run-producing talent,
though it could just have easily come from his frequent character
attacks on other players.
As
much as Clark (supposedly) hated the AL, he returned there in 1991
when he signed with the Boston Red Sox. Again, he took aim at one of
his former comrades:
“(Padres
manager) Greg Riddoch is a bad, bad man, and he's sneaky. He's
a snake. Well, not just a snake, but a s-s-s-n-n-n-a-ke.”
...as
well as firing off a few rounds at the Padres' fans:
“Everything
that they should cheer for, they'd boo for, and everything they
should boo for they'd cheer for...Tony, he's perfect for them. He
just plays the whole thing up, and the town is so stupid that they
can't see (emphasis added).”
It
was around this time that Gwynn decided he'd had quite enough:
“Let's
talk about him walking 104 times, being a #4 hitter. Let's talk about
his not flying on team flights. Let's talk about him getting booted
out of games on a called strike three.”
Clark
had his own faults, beyond his need to point out the flaws of others.
In 1992 his lavish spending habits led him into bankruptcy, driven
primarily by his obsession with luxury cars. His bankruptcy filing
stated that he was paying on 17 car notes at the same time.
Seventeen. He would sometimes get bored with a car and simply
get rid of it in favor of a new and different one. In the end, he
lost his home (valued at approximately 2.4 million) and his
drag-racing business, but was once again financially stable by the
late-90's.
This
leads us to thirteen years ago. In 2000, he was working as hitting
coach for the LA Dodgers. It was in this season that he supposedly
was told by the trainer Mihlfeld that he was giving Pujols steroids.
Now,
the easiest flaw to point out in Clark's statement is that it's pure
hearsay; just because Clark says that someone else said that
so-and-so was being given steroids, that doesn't make it true.
Granted, Mihlfeld was involved with Grimsley, who was most assuredly
using PEDs. But this sort of 'guilt-by-association' strategy is
what's being used against a number of former players even now, with
reporters and fans alike making reckless assumptions (in some cases).
Beyond
Clark's assertion that Mihlfeld said he gave steroids to the Angels
first-sacker, what else does he have to offer to back up that claim?
Not to mention this little tidbit, where he said:
“...basically
told me that's what he did.”
“Basically
told me...”. OK, so did Mihlfeld come out and say it, point-blank,
or did he simply allude to the possibility that he
might be doing so? Either he said it or he didn't. This 'basically'
crap is close to slander, the way I see it. At first, Clark says that
he was told by Mihlfeld that the trainer was giving Pujols
steroids. The follow-up statement says “basically...”. So which
is it?
For
that matter, why are you bringing this up now? I would have to assume
that your concern in this matter is that fair play and a clean game
are paramount to the success and reputation of Major League Baseball.
But if that's what you believe, then why are you coming out thirteen
years after the fact with such an accusation, at a time in which
you'd be hard-pressed to prove the the conversation even took place,
about one of the biggest stars in the last 50 years? What could your
motivation possibly be?
Actually,
as I was researching for this post, writer Ray DeRousse had already written an excellent article about Clark's
possible motivation for making such a (potentially) reckless
comment. In this post, he noted that Clark seemed to be jealous of
the success of both proven and suspected PED users, citing Clark's own words:
“They
got the money, that's what they went for. But when they get off the
juice and that stuff's not around, their body starts breaking down
and obviously you start seeing some results go away...The
greed...they juice up, they grab the money and it's just a free pass
to steal is the way I look at it.”
Well,
now. That certainly clears up some things, doesn't it? At least it
gives some insight as to why Clark might feel the way he does, as
well as the timing in which he's chosen to make his accusations.
Granted,
there has been some suspicion about Pujols since his earlier
days with the Cards, but never has he even been remotely linked with
anything in the way of concrete evidence of PED use. Yes, he was
associated with Mihlfeld, who was actually cleared from involvement
in PED distribution back in 2006 when Brian McNamee was instead
linked to the Grimsley affidavit as the guilty party in question.
Deadspin.com, on June 8th, 2006, also
pointed the finger at Mihlfeld, going so far as to name Mihlfeld
as the individual who connected Grimsley (and others) to a dealer who
provided the players with “amphetamines, anabolic steroids and
HGH”.
People
in the sports media who play this sort of game, in which they may do
no more than insinuate the guilt of a player, are on thin ice as soon
as they start. Pujols has already stated in the press that he is
planning to sue Clark and WGNU, as well.
Pujols
told MLB.com:
"I
know people are tired of athletes saying they are innocent, asking
for the public to believe in them only to have their sins exposed
later down the road. But I am not one of those athletes, and I will
not stand to have my name, and my family's name, dragged through the
mud."
Of
course, these are just words. We've all seen the 'Indignant Major
Leaguer' card played many times before, and it's a pretty tired
approach at this point. All that will matter in the end is whether or
not Pujols used PEDs, and following the progression (or lack,
thereof) of the libel suit that Pujols plans to file could tell a
great deal as to whether Clark was right. Remember: it's only libel
if it isn't true.
And
Pujols has, to our knowledge, never failed a drug test. It
will certainly be interesting to see how this plays out.
(UPDATE: Early Saturday morning, insideSTL announced the firing of both Clark and Slaten. The company is doing its best to distance themselves from the former co-hosts, as well as their comments. Best of luck with that. )
