Pujols’ suit called Clark’s statements “malicious, reckless and outrageous falsehoods.”

Among other things, the motion points out that the juicer comment isn't defamatory, because the term could have many meanings, including, “in its most innocent sense, one who liquefies fruit and fruit pulp for oral consumption.”

The motion also points out that a comment about injection was vague because Clark never gave a context as to what was being injected. The comments about the trainer aren't defamatory because they're merely recounting a statement made by a third party, the motion says.

The petition designates José Alberto Pujols Alcántara as the plaintiff, but the text of the petition refers to the defamation of Albert Pujols, and the petition does not properly express that those names refer to the same person, the motion says.

Clark is represented by Clayton attorney Al Watkins. Martin Singer, an attorney in Los Angeles, where Pujols now plays for the Angels, has written that his client would be willing to testify under oath about Clark’s claims that Pujols used steroids.

Keep up with the latest Cardinals coverage from our award-winning team of reporters and columnists. Sign up! * I understand and agree that registration on or use of this site constitutes agreement to its user agreement and privacy policy.