Albert Pujols is suing former baseball player Jack Clark because Clark recently went on his now-cancelled radio show and told listeners that Pujols's trainer once told him that Pujols had been "juicing." Judging by a settlement offer that was sent from Clark's attorney to Pujols's attorney this morning, Clark has retained a real-life TV defense lawyer to represent him in the case.
The entire offer—penned by attorney Albert Watkins—is attached below, but we'll run through some of the highlights here. After spending six paragraphs lecturing his adversary on the difference between the name "Albert" and "Alberto," Watkins jumps right into his qualms with Pujols's case:
Having dispatched with the preliminaries, it appears the clumps in the proverbial kitty litter of this case relate to statements attributed to Mr. Clark about "juicing" by Mr. Alcantara. At first blush, this appears to be an important issue in the underlying case. I have exhausted definitional resources (read: Googled until l got tired) and have noted this term “juicing” has multiple meanings. I would refer you to Jack Lalanne if he was not already deceased. To avoid prospectively unnecessary motions for clarification, kindly consider this a request that you specify as a matter of court record that which is meant when the term “juicing'I is used in your Petition.
A similar issue arises out of your use of the three words, “performance enhancing drugs.” Without in any way intending to belittle the importance of erectile dysfunction to those who, regularly or from time to time, suffer from the frustration associated with "taking batting practice with a rope", but Viagra is considered by a whole lot of folks to be a performance enhancing drug. For that matter, Ben Gay may be considered a performance enhancing drug. Perhaps I am speaking out of turn, but I would strongly discourage the concurrent use of both Viagra and Ben Gay. Again, I digress. That being said, kindly consider this a request that you define as a matter of court record specifically those drugs that you consider encompassed by your use of the three words, “performance enhancing drugs."
Boosh! That little parenthetical about Google searching is straight out of the snarky blogger playbook. It appears that Mr. Watkins has spent a fair amount of time on the internet, and he's not afraid to show it.
Watkins goes on in this vein for a few more paragraphs, before finishing with a flourish:
Your client's commitment to donate all monetary damages awarded him in this case (assuming, arguendo, a judgment is entered in favor of your client) is noble. It is also indicative of what appears to be your client's disinterest in monetary gain from this case and his prioritization of a charitable cause. Again, this is noble. But I am compelled to point out that odds tremendously favor Mr. Alcantara paying your firm (and your St. Louis based oounter-parts/ooilegaues) more in legal fees prior to his deposition being taken than one could ever hope in one's wildest and wettest of dreams to procure through post-judgment execution efforts directed at seizing or procuring assets of Mr. Clark. I remember my father telling me as we walked stoically from the graveside of my then recently buried maternal grandfather, “Son, we are simply on this earth killing time between funerals.” It would sure be nice if these two baseball legends employed their talents, skills, charm, charisma, good looks, swagger and convictions to further a cause other than the litigation initiated by Mr. Alcantara.
Shout out to Albert Watkins's dad for dispensing such sage wisdom onto his son. That's some real shit you are talking about right there, Old Man Watkins.
Having had his fun, Watkins finally gets down to brass tacks and floats his settlement offer He suggests that both Pujols and Clark settle the matter by submitting to a polygraph test, and then he works in a crack about Lance Armstrong. We look forward to seeing the results of those tests.
You can read the full settlement offer below: