ROTOWIRE.COM NFL MLB / Minors NBA NHL GOLF RACING    COMMUNITY FORUMS PODCASTS MYROTOWIRE ASK AN EXPERT GAMES

Why Pujols Won't Sue Jack Clark

"Mrs. Pujols, isn't it true that Albert's testicles have gotten smaller over the years?"  It sounds like an absurd question, but it's an example of the intrusive and ball-busting (pun intended) yet totally legitimate discovery that Jack Clark could initiate against Pujols if he filed suit.

You see, lawsuits don't transpire like they do on television.  If Pujols sued Clark for money damages for defamation, they wouldn't quickly go to trial, with Clark forced to admit he has no direct proof that Pujols ever used performance enhancing drugs (which, at this point, he presumably doesn't).  Rather, before any trial takes place, Clark would get to engage in a months or years-long process called discovery.  Depositions, not only of Pujols, but of countless third-party witnesses.  Interrogatories.  Requests for production of documents.  Why?  It's not just because Pujols and Clark have a lot of money and their lawyers would run up a big bill (which certainly happens in high-profile cases).

When a plaintiff files suit for defamation, truth is a complete defense.  If what Jack Clark said about Albert Pujols is true, i.e. Pujols did, in fact, use performance-enhancing drugs, then Clark can't be liable for defamation.  From the court's perspective, that is the goal of the process - to help both sides reach a just result by uncovering the truth. That's why the discovery rules in most states are very broad - to help reach a just result.  Here, the "just result" would be the answer to the question everyone in the sports world is wondering - ascertaining whether Albert Pujols has ever used PEDs.

If Jack Clark walked into my office today asking me to defend him, I'd have an absolute field day with the discovery process.  Any good lawyer would.  Here are just a few of the ways I'd litigate the case that would make Pujols' life miserable.  This sounds unfair, but that's what any Plaintiff voluntarily endures as a byproduct of choosing to file suit:

- Obtain all of Pujols medical records from the moment he started playing baseball through the present (head size, back acne, any other PEDs symptoms or, for all we know, prescriptions). 

- Take depositions of Pujols' wife ("testicles smaller?") and family members ("back acne?")

- Take depositions of Pujols' former teammates, coaches, trainers (Everything from "ever seen Pujols use PEDs?" to "Has his hat size gotten bigger?")

- Take depositions of other known PEDs users - I'm sure ARod and others would love to throw Pujols under the bus, true or not.  I'm sure a depo of Jose Canseco would be fun, too. 

- Obtain phone records and bank statements reflecting any phone calls or monies paid to any of the notorious PEDs dealers.

If Pujols has ever used PEDs, then, as Clark's lawyer, I'd find it eventually if I dug deep enough.  That's why, if Pujols has ever been dirty, he'd be nuts to file suit against Clark.  Threaten suit, as he has?  Sure.  But subject your wife to questions about your testicles shrinking?  No, thanks.  There's just no upside to filing this suit. 

Even if Pujols is clean, the discovery process would be so brutal, so intrusive, and so personal that it would be hard to imagine Albert filing that lawsuit.  Who wants to be subjected to all of this, even if he was clean?  Oh, and all of that discovery would likely become a matter of public record, for the media to circulate as it sees fit.  (There are exceptions, but typically information like this would not be filed "under seal.")

So if you're hoping Pujols will file suit, don't hold your breath - it won't happen.  And even if it does, it will get dismissed or settled before we learn the truth. 

 

Comments

By: Kevin Payne
On: 8/10/2013 5:37:00 PM
I'd bet money Pujols files the suit. Anyone looking to prove their innocence would. What happens after that? The lawyers talk and Clark agrees to make a public statement that he was wrong, had no evidence, etc and in return Pujols drops the suit. Pujols isn't looking for money but in the day and age of Biogenesis/PEDs, I'll really be surprised if Albert doesn't try to make himself look 100 percent innocent.
 
By: Chris Liss
On: 8/10/2013 9:04:00 PM
I thought I read Clark was broke. If so, you should offer to represent him pro bono (if he can convince you he's telling the truth) and advise him not to settle.
 
By: Mark Stopa
On: 8/11/2013 5:39:00 AM
I'd like to see Clark sue Pujols for defamation. After all, Clark is the one with demonstrable damages - Clark lost his job. Clark also has nothing to lose by filing suit.

For basically the same reasons I listed out above, Pujols would have immense pressure to settle quietly.
 
By: Mark Stopa
On: 8/11/2013 6:02:00 AM
Oh, and you're right, Chris. I'm sure many lawyers would take that case pro bono. Heck, part of me wonders if MLB would help foot the bill.
 
By: rkinigson
On: 8/11/2013 8:08:00 AM
Given the "lottery mentality" of our society, why wouldn't Clark sue WGNU (920 AM) for wrongful termination, especially if he is telling the truth?
 
By: Mark Stopa
On: 8/11/2013 8:12:00 AM
The way the law works in most states, employees are "at will." That means they can quit or be fired at any time for any reason or no reason, unless they have a written contract with a term of employment, so long as it is not illegal discrimination (race, religion, ethnicity, gender).
 
By: elsicilian
On: 8/24/2013 5:15:00 AM
I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion, but when I first heard about this, I immediately assumed Pujols would not sue for pretty much the same reasons. Appearances notwithstanding, there is no way anyone like Pujols wants to give investigators carte blanche to poke into his life and depose his nearest and dearest. Even if he wins the suit, you can bet it will be uncomfortable and embarrassing, and he has little incentive to "disprove" any offhand allegations from a guy like Jack Clark.
 
By: lvtdude
On: 10/4/2013 4:15:00 PM
And, now he's suing him. Just after everyone forgot about it. Pujols is stupid for opening this can of worms, even if he is innocent.
 

Leave a comment

Commenting is restricted to registered users only. Please register or login now to submit a comment.

Tell Someone

  • Digg it
  • submit to reddit reddit
  • Add to Mixx!

Recent Favorites

Do Analytics Take the Fun Out of Sports?
Apparently that was the topic of one of the presentations at the Sloan Sports Analytics Conference in Boston last week. The presenter, Yale's Edward Tufte, opined:

Don't let people tell you analytics are reductionist and take the joy out of sports. They mostly just take the stupidity out of sports.

Is he right?

RotoWire's AL LABR Squad
The 2014 AL LABR auction went down at the Arizona Republic offices in downtown Phoenix Saturday night. It's a 12-team, 5 x 5, AL-only league with 2 C, 1 1B, 1 2B. 1 3B, 1 SS, 1 CI, 1 MI, 5 OF, 1 U and 9 pitchers. Everyone has $260 to spend.
The Problem With Drafting Billy Hamilton
Billy Hamilton went for $28 in the NL LABR auction this past weekend. I discussed this with a fellow writer who participates in Tout Wars with me later this month and we discussed the problem with investing heavily into Hamilton.
Payne's Daily Fantasy Basketball Experiment
Let's see if I can make any money doing daily fantasy hoops.
My 12-Team NFBC RotoWire Online Championship Team
I drafted out of the 11-hole for the "Beat Chris Liss" league. I had done a fair amount of research on optimal roster construction from that slot, and I decided I'd go hitter in the first round, three pitchers in 2-4 and then hitting for the next 10 rounds or so before filling in with upside pitchers late. Of course, few battle plans survive the actual war. Here are the results:

RSS Feeds