Skip to content

Jack Clark and Kevin Slaten lash out at the St. Louis sports radio station that fired them

Aug 11, 2013, 1:43 PM EDT

jack clark, kevin slaten

Before we move along to the next chapter of this running drama, let’s review a timeline of events:

  • Jack Clark, a player for the Giants, Cardinals, Red Sox, Padres and Yankees over an 18-year major league career, claims on his CBS Sports 920 radio show in St. Louis that Albert Pujols‘ former trainer used to inject the slugger with steroids. Clark says the trainer, Chris Mihlfeld, offered up this info while Mihlfeld and Clark were both on staff with the Dodgers in the late 1990s.
  • Mihlfeld denies Clark’s story in a statement to HBT: “I haven’t even talked to Jack Clark in close to 10 years. His statements are simply not true. I have known Albert Pujols since he was 18 years old and he would never use illegal drugs in any way. I would bet my life on it and probably drop dead on the spot if I found out he has. … Albert and myself have been accused of doing something we didn’t do.”
  • Pujols threatens legal action against Clark and the CBS Sports 920 ownership, insideSTL Enterprises. Clark and his partner Kevin Slaten are fired from the radio station, which had only been on air a week.
  • Clark stands by his claim that Mihlfeld acknowledged injecting Pujols with steroids.

Slaten is now planning to sue insideSTL, writes Dan Caesar of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

Slaten said he got the termination call from insideSTL president Tim McKernan around midnight.

“I said ‘What?,”’ Slaten said. “He said, ‘We have to do what’s in the best interest of the company.’ I said, ‘You tell me how firing me is in the best interest of the company when you and (WGNU boss Burt Kaufman) said (earlier) that I did nothing wrong.”

Slaten said McKernan told him, “‘I know that, but everybody associated with the show has to go.

“I said, ‘Did you fire the producer? Did you fire yourself, you’re the one who paired us, did you fire yourself?’

There’s plenty more inside-radio stuff in that article. Clark is also upset about the sudden firing:

“I’m still trying to get my knife out of my back from the radio station, the way that was handled,” Clark told the Post-Dispatch. “They did not allow us to go ahead and talk about it, talk to callers. They made us lie and say the phones weren’t working.”

McKernan and insideSTL issued this short written statement on Saturday afternoon: “insideSTL Enterprises, LLC and all related companies would like to make clear that Jack Clark is no longer associated with the company.  Mr. Clark was never employed by insideSTL but rather was an independent contractor.  Any opinions, views or statements made by him strictly reflect his own personal views and do not reflect the views of insideSTL.  insideSTL Enterprises, LLC and any related companies have never asserted and do not assert that Albert Pujols has ever used steroids or any other type of performing enhancing drug.”

  1. Bob Loblaw - Aug 12, 2013 at 1:00 AM

    Like I said in the other thread, I’m still waiting for all these “lawsuits” to be filed by Pujols. He’s injured now so he should have plenty of time to work with his legal staff to get some paperwork filed. However, for some reason, I think it will turn out to be all talk and no action. Just like Barry Bonds.

    One thing I have to give Lance Armstrong credit for is that, even though he was cheating, he didn’t threaten lawsuits…he actually followed through on them. Which actually makes him an even worse person, yes. But he still deserves more credit than the jag offs who cheat, threaten suit, then don’t sue.

    If Pujols doesn’t sue, then it will be hard for me to believe that Clark wasn’t telling the truth.

    • largebill - Aug 12, 2013 at 6:26 AM

      I’m missing your logic. You say Armstrong was a worse person for suing but deserves more credit for filing a lawsuit he knew to be dishonest. Nah, I’d give someone more credit (if they deserve any) for being intelligent enough to realize their lawyer was giving them good advice not to file frivolous suits.

    • asimonetti88 - Aug 12, 2013 at 10:47 AM

      Sounds like you’re saying damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

  2. banggbiskit - Aug 12, 2013 at 5:24 AM

    Im thinking the opposite. Some have said that if he DOESNT sue, they’ll think he’s guilty/has something to hide. My thought is that because he’s all angered and threatening to sue, he DOES have something to hide. If he’s innocent, why would you get so angry at what some blowhard talk show guys say? Life’s short, if you’re innocent, you don’t give it the time of day.

  3. chalkruz1989 - Aug 12, 2013 at 8:04 AM

    I am a firm believer in freedom of speech, but, when it comes to harming the reputation of another being and those allegations don’t hold water, I am against that. Mr Clark and Slaten should have understood the reprecussions of making such allegations. In light of the recent suspensions and black cloud hanging over baseball, MLB does not need a player such as Albert Pujols to be lumped in with the cheaters.

    I do think the radio station should have shown some allegiance but if the hosts didn’t have a leg to stand on, it’s best to separate yourself from them.

  4. bleedgreen - Aug 12, 2013 at 9:51 AM

    To be honest, Clark says he was told in the late 90’s, Mihlfeld says he hasn’t talked to Clark in over 10 years which, coincidentally, kinda lines up with what Clark is saying.

    • spudchukar - Aug 12, 2013 at 10:09 AM

      No it doesn’t. I haven’t lived in St. Louis for 33 years. 35 years ago the First National Bank of St. Louis got robbed. Therefore, I robbed the bank.

      • bleedgreen - Aug 12, 2013 at 12:10 PM

        If your alibi/denial/defense is “I couldn’t have robbed that bank, I haven’t been to St. Louis in 20 years!”, its not really an alibi or denial because it doesn’t exclude you since the bank was robbed 35 years ago.

      • spudchukar - Aug 12, 2013 at 1:39 PM

        So by your thought process, I am still a suspect even though there is no evidence that supports your thesis.

      • spudchukar - Aug 12, 2013 at 2:10 PM

        It doesn’t line up in any way with Clark’s accusations. Often when questioned regarding a multitude of issues, I reply, with something like “Jeez, I dunno, musta been 10 years”. That doesn’t mean 10 years exactly, just quite a long time.

        Plus you conflate 2 separate ideas. No where does Mihlfeld say I haven’t talk to Clark in 10 years therefore I couldn’t have had that conversation. He most likely is just free associating, first off it has been a long time since Clark and I have talked. Then the denial comes.

        So with your twisted logic, since the accusation goes back 13 years, Mihlfeld must be lying. What an extraordinary leap.

    • jdd428 - Aug 12, 2013 at 6:28 PM

      How could Mihlfeld tell Clark anything about Pujols in the late 90s? Pujols wasn’t even in pro ball until 2000, so he wouldn’t have even been a topic of discussion in the late 90s. … I think Clark if full of BS.

      • bleedgreen - Aug 13, 2013 at 9:37 PM

        Either way, ‘I haven’t talked to Clark in 10 years’ is not an alibi, because they DID talk at a time when Mihlfeld COULD have been injecting Pujols. Its not a denial or in any way convincing.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

A managerial overanalysis epidemic
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. M. Bumgarner (3098)
  2. J. Shields (2912)
  3. T. Lincecum (2764)
  4. T. Ishikawa (2387)
  5. M. Morse (2382)
  1. Y. Cespedes (2013)
  2. L. Cain (1656)
  3. B. Roberts (1640)
  4. B. Posey (1496)
  5. U. Jimenez (1487)