Clark ended up being fired for the comments and the St. Louis radio station upon which he made the comments offered up a swift retraction and apology.
One of Clark's assertions was that former Pujols trainer Chris Mihlfeld told him in confidence about shooting up Pujols with PEDs and Mihlfeld has since denied the claim.
Now, Pujols is suing Clark for defamation -- a pretty strong rebuttal -- but Clark won't back down. In fact, Clark is digging in his heels, because his attorney has sent a letter to Pujols' representation with a challenge.
In the letter from Clark's attorney Al Watkins, Clark proposed settling the lawsuit by both sides submitting to polygraph tests.
Pujols would be asked if "he is being deceptive when he asserts that he has never used steroids or performance enhancing drugs while in the minor and major leagues."
Clark would be asked if he is being deceptive about Mihlfeld telling him that Pujols "juiced."
The letter laid out various remedies pending the outcome of the polygraphs. All of them involved one party or another apologizing.
Watkins said his client already has admitted to a poor choice of words for claiming he knew for certain that Pujols used steroids. Clark had that information only secondhand, Watkins said.
If Pujols bringing a defamation lawsuit was strong, Clark's move is even stronger -- at least in terms of grandstanding for the public. Pujols is now in a pretty bad spot. If he takes the polygraph, he chances slipping up -- and the polygraphs aren't reliable enough to be admissable in court, for example. If he turns down the offer, he looks guilty. His only way to win is if he takes the (again, possibly unreliable and definitely inadmissable in court) test, passes it and Clark fails it.
Your move, Albert.