11/21/24
April 23, 2007
Positively Landis?: Reigning Tour de France Champion Floyd Landis, still awaiting an arbitration hearing regarding his positive test for synthetic testosterone during last year's Tour, now learns his seven other "B" samples have come back positive as well. If the doping accusations are upheld, Landis faces a two-year ban from competitive cycling, and would become the first Tour champion in the event's 104-year history to be stripped of his title
posted by The_Black_Hand to other at 03:31 PM - 59 comments
I agree to some extent, apoch, and I'd like to see him exonerated, too, but I think I'll reserve judgement until after the arbitration. A terrible time for cycling when the champion of the sport's grandest event is under this kind of cloud.
posted by The_Black_Hand at 04:01 PM on April 23, 2007
The curious thing about these results is that the A samples were negative. Unless both samples are positive, it is considered a negative result. I could be wrong, but I thought that if the A samples didn't trigger the elevated levels than they don't test for synthetic hormones. From what I've read, you can manage those levels if you're careful. So this, in theory, could show that he was doping all the way. But, like Apoch points out, having this lab retest the samples seems a bit odd. Why couldn't his guy at least watch, even without the USADA folks? Are they worried he was going to drink the samples to destroy the evidence? Unlike the previous two posts, I want to see him nailed to the wall. I'm tired of reasonable doubt.
posted by SummersEve at 04:09 PM on April 23, 2007
The curious thing about these results is that the A samples were negative. Unless both samples are positive, it is considered a negative result. The suspicious thing about this is how they excluded his expert when they were running the tests. It seems like a conflict of interest to use the same lab to conduct these tests that conducted the original disputed result. Especially when a large part of the Landis case is the number of procedural errors that were committed in the testing of the Stage 17 sample. (so that's what I look like when I defend someone so obviously guilty huh?) Wow. Should I call him a dirty cheater who has disgraced the entire cycling community? I mean this guy is testing positive more times than Pacman Jones has 'talked to' police. I however will not call him a cheater, I will respect the previous opinions of fellow community members who wish for the best out of a Pro athlete. (now nail this cheating mofo to the wall so we can have some balance around here.)
posted by Bishop at 04:18 PM on April 23, 2007
It is impossible to determine the strength of the case against Landis since only pieces of evidence have been publicized. And while I know it sounds like Landis is trying to get off on technicalities, lab procedures and technique are absolutely critical when dealing with tests as sensitive as these. But if tests were done correctly - there's really no explanation for a testosterone ratio to be anywhere near 11:1 except doping - then he's guilty and should be stripped of the TdF crown. What troubles me most in cycling is the way the athletes are railroaded by the media, WADA, UCI, Tour de France, USADA, and L'Equipe. Once accused, the athlete is immediately fired by their team and typically left without the resources to fight back. They just get ground up by "the machine". Landis has landed a few blows by pointing out sloppy work in original analysis at the French lab. So the USADA responded by analyzing samples previously tested as negative - clearly against their own guidelines - and keeping his representative from observing the testing process. So even when the athlete wins, the regulatory bodies just change the rules of the game!
posted by BikeNut at 04:19 PM on April 23, 2007
Once accused, the athlete is immediately fired by their team and typically left without the resources to fight back. They just get ground up by "the machine". Or, if you're a photogenic Italian at the peak of his career, get signed by the biggest team in the world and get given a huge salary. As for Landis, I don't care if he's guilty or not any more, I just wish they'd hurry the hell up and get on with it. I'm sick of reading this crap on cyclingnews every day.
posted by afx237vi at 04:25 PM on April 23, 2007
Why would the French go to such lengths to get at Landis? His protests seem highly implausible to me. It's a pity because he was a heroic figure, but I have come to believe that all cyclists dope themselves up and I also believe, with absolutely no evidence to back up the belief, that they are encouraged in the practice by their teams and their doctors, but, as is usually the case, it's the poor bloody infantry that take the bullets.
posted by Fat Buddha at 04:33 PM on April 23, 2007
(so that's what I look like when I defend someone so obviously guilty huh?) Wow. Should I call him a dirty cheater who has disgraced the entire cycling community? You should get some perspective and stop grinding your axe on threads that you don't have any interest in, in an effort to draw a nonexistent connection to other threads where you've felt wrong-done-by. On topic, I tend to agree with BikeNut: the whole point of "technicalities", in drug testing and in the law, is to protect due process. If someone who is guilty gets off on a technicality, well, you should have been more scrupulous with your procedures.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 04:36 PM on April 23, 2007
Or, if you're a photogenic Italian at the peak of his career, get signed by the biggest team in the world and get given a huge salary. My prediction is UCF and TdF will find a way to bar Basso from riding in Tour this year.
posted by BikeNut at 04:43 PM on April 23, 2007
Apologies for going off topic, but this article on The Hell of the North will be appreciated by cycling aficionados.
posted by Fat Buddha at 04:52 PM on April 23, 2007
Fat Buddha, you should post that to the front page. Bishop, yes I realize that there is a good chance that Landis is guilty. I hope it turns out he isn't, but that doesn't blind me to the possibility that he is. He has only tested positive once, the sample taken after the miraculous 17th stage. The recent B sample tests do not count as positive tests because in order for a test to be positive both the A and B sample have to be positive. In case you're not familiar with the process, the urine sample is divided into two samples, A and B. If A comes back positive, they test the B to rule out false positives. If B isn't positive, then A is ruled to be a false positive. If A is negative they store the B samples for a certain length of time then destroy the sample. Now, I do not know the differences in what tests were originally run on the A samples and what tests were run on the B. So I can't really say what these positive results mean. I had assumed that they ran the same tests, but I could be wrong. Re: Why the lab would mess with the sample to get Landis? I don't know that they did. I can think of one possible motivation, vindication. He's slammed them publicly for their shoddy work and failure to follow procedures. If they can prove he's guilty they will be vindicated. I'm not saying they did mess with the samples, I'm saying I don't entirely trust this particular lab. Their methodolgy has proven less than stringent in the past, and if I recall correctly they were the lab that tested those old Armstrong samples and claimed he doped. (Of course, there were procedural issues with that testing too.)
posted by apoch at 05:14 PM on April 23, 2007
Just wondering and could not tell from the story: Is this another leak of confidential information?
posted by graymatters at 05:19 PM on April 23, 2007
Wired Science's take on this episode in the TdF-Landis Soap Opera
posted by apoch at 05:21 PM on April 23, 2007
Another take on the Queen of the Classics, the Hell of the North, L'Enfer du Nord, la Pascale, the Race with a Dozen Nicknames, etc etc...
posted by afx237vi at 05:28 PM on April 23, 2007
These days, I find it difficult to continue give the athletes the benefit of the doubt. I think he's a cheat. Most of the signs just seem to point that way.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 05:56 PM on April 23, 2007
Whether Landis is ultimately exonerated or not, the damage has been done to a sport already grievously injured by similar doping scandals. A case in point; who is the 2006 Tour Champion?
posted by sickleguy at 06:06 PM on April 23, 2007
I agree with apoch's link. It is just bad science for the same lab to redo the tests. They have a vested interest in the tests coming out the same way. Then to refuse entry to Landis's representatives on top of this. It is all too shady for me to find it credible in the least. All of the samples are destroyed in the testing, so there will never be any independent corroboration of his failed test. And, these tests are not simple yes or no tests, they are varying shades of gray where impartiality is even more important.
posted by bperk at 06:42 PM on April 23, 2007
I'm with Weedy. It's a sad, sad thing, but I think he's a cheat. And none of his actions have given me any inkling that that instinct is incorrect.
posted by 86 at 07:10 PM on April 23, 2007
LANDIS: They dressed me up like this. CROWD: Augh, we didn't! We didn't... LANDIS: And this isn't my nose. It's a false one. BEDEVERE: Well? VILLAGER #1: Well, we did do the nose. BEDEVERE: So, why do dopers burn? [pause] VILLAGER #3: B--... 'cause they're made of... wood? BEDEVERE: So, how do we tell whether he is made of wood? VILLAGER #1: Build a bridge out of him. VILLAGER #1: If... he... weighs... the same as a duck,... he's made of wood. BEDEVERE: And therefore? VILLAGER #2: A doper! VILLAGER #1: A doper! CROWD: A doper! A doper!...
posted by SummersEve at 08:05 PM on April 23, 2007
You should get some perspective and stop grinding your axe on threads that you don't have any interest in, in an effort to draw a nonexistent connection to other threads where you've felt wrong-done-by. Here we go. I guess I'm only allowed to participate in links where black athletes are accused of cheating or smoking weed. I have no axe to grind. That part of my post was actually a joke to me. Stop taking everything so damn seriously. How the hell do you know my level of interest concerning athletes accused of cheating? Are you attempting to act like this topic is no big deal? What's next, are you going to to make a list of threads I can and can not post on? As a long standing member here you should keep this kind of personal BS in email, and if there is no email address, bite your damn tongue and stick to the topic. Stop trying to make every damn thread about me or what I say. Take a long look at anyone else who responded to my post. Not one person crying about grinding axes or 'non-existent connections'. If you actually think there is no link or relationship with threads where an athlete is accused of cheating, you have issues. The winner of the tour de france was stripped of his title after testing positive for doping (again). Do you actually think only the 'cyclists' here are interested? I comment on most threads where there are accusations of cheating. If you don't appreciate the context of my post , skip it. If you're not mature enough to do so, it usually ends up derailing the thread. SEE
posted by Bishop at 02:23 AM on April 24, 2007
Here we go. I guess I'm only allowed to participate in links where black athletes are accused of cheating or smoking weed. You're allowed to participate in any thread you want to -- so participate, by all means. Really, please do. A five-sentence comment, four of which allude to how you were received in other threads, is pretty weak participation. You're a smart person and you can do better, but only by addressing the subject at hand, not trying to make connections that don't exist. The various interconnected agencies and authorities that govern athlete drug testing are not part of any country's legal system...and that, in a way, is part of the problem, as it means that they effectively have no accountability. Not, mind you, that I'm advocating getting The Gummint involved in the business, but the legal system that Pacman Jones ran afoul of is answerable in a variety of ways. Don't wanna get too deep into it here, just to say that if you follow that "connection" for a step or two, you quickly realize that it's a case of apples and Wankel rotary engines. How the hell do you know my level of interest concerning athletes accused of cheating? Are you attempting to act like this topic is no big deal? I have a pretty good idea of your level of interest because of my own level of interest in athlete drug testing. I've been there in other threads in the past, and you weren't a memorable presence, if indeed you were there at all. If, as you assert, you usually comment, maybe you can point me to some threads, and I'll cheerfully retract my statement.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 07:46 AM on April 24, 2007
I guess I'm only allowed to participate in links where black athletes are accused of cheating or smoking weed. I have no axe to grind. That part of my post was actually a joke to me. Stop taking everything so damn seriously. That's an easy defense, but it doesn't ring true. You seem insistent on showing up in every thread to ask "How would this be different if the athlete were black?" We all get the point, but at the end of the day this is SportsFilter, not RaceFilter and you have a responsibility as a member of the community to talk sports at some level. Otherwise you will lose your ability to influence anyone's mind. It's a matter of choice and purpose: either you want to affect the thoughts of others or you're here for ego gratification, to always be right after the fact and let us know.
posted by yerfatma at 08:19 AM on April 24, 2007
Take a long look at anyone else who responded to my post. Not one person crying about grinding axes or 'non-existent connections'. My apologies to lbb. Because, Bishop, I was thinking the exact same as she. But, I've tried to talk sensibly and fairly with you in the past (I was unsuccessful), so I decided this was just not a discussion I wanted to get into with you. But, since you attacked lbb by assuming no-one else saw the ridiculousness of your first post, here I am. The majority of folks here would prefer that Landis be innocent. Just like, everything else held equal, the community here would prefer that a talented athlete like Pacman not be suspended. But, our "preferences" go out the window when the athletes' actions force us to look at them differently. Revisit your rant if Landis is exonerated by everyone here even after it's proven he doped. In comparison, the folks defending the NFL have chosen to do so after Pacman's multiple run-ins with the law have indicated a problem - remember, even though you've ignored this in the past - some of these "talking to's" with police (as you refer to them) have resulted in the legal system adding time to his already existing probation. On topic: I'm not much into cycling, so I don't know all of the historic issues with the doping agencies, but Floyd's blog (admittedly, CLEARLY very biased) paints an ugly picture of USADA. My confusion about all of this is : Shouldn't this whole process be extremely scientific and filled with protocol? Why is the USADA leaving the door wide open for speculation and distrust by acting like this? What the heck are they doing in this lab - where is the "scientific method" - that makes it even possible for comments like this to hold any water? (from his blog) : USADA observers regularly provided specific direction to the LNDD, over-ruling the Landis observers’ objections and conferring with LNDD staff in private during sample processing.
posted by littleLebowski at 08:31 AM on April 24, 2007
I'd rather Bishop not compare the thread-of-the-moment with FPPs about black athletes. I'd also like it if we could just ignore it when/if it happens instead of focusing on it and ending up with a complete thread derail. Shouldn't this whole process be extremely scientific and filled with protocol? Why is the USADA leaving the door wide open for speculation and distrust by acting like this? What the heck are they doing in this lab - where is the "scientific method" - that makes it even possible for comments like this to hold any water? I compare it to prosecutors. In theory, prosecutors are supposed to uphold justice. In reality, it becomes a game of winning and losing and putting people in jail. As a result, the justice part about gives way to the competitive aspect. I think that is what is happening here. USADA/TdF want to catch dopers by any means necessary. In all likelihood, they believe he is a doper and they want to catch him. They are not committed to the process, they are focused on the end result.
posted by bperk at 08:46 AM on April 24, 2007
The French can't stand the fact that we OWN their #1 sporting event. They can't even compete anymore. These are the same MF'ers that tried to say Lance Armstrong's cancer treatments gave him an unfair advantage. It just all seems like a witch hunt against the "American". Cycling has definately become more of a joke than a sport. The tour has "jumped the shark".
posted by yay-yo at 10:24 AM on April 24, 2007
Yeah, and they eat cheese too, yay-yo.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:27 AM on April 24, 2007
The French can't stand the fact that we OWN their #1 sporting event. They can't even compete anymore. These are the same MF'ers that tried to say Lance Armstrong's cancer treatments gave him an unfair advantage. It just all seems like a witch hunt against the "American". Yeah, America is the greatest country in the world. No other country has athletes better at anything than the U.S.A. We should all bow down and realize that only American athletes win, and all other countries athletes are losers. Todays whipping boy is...drum roll please....France. On topic, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, it's probably a duck.
posted by tommybiden at 11:12 AM on April 24, 2007
So if a lab with a history of shady results on high profile American riders, that has a close relationship with a newspaper that has a vendetta against high profile American riders, and has been proven to not follow testing protocols, it's a duck?
posted by apoch at 11:21 AM on April 24, 2007
Well, it's something, apoch, but consider the source of the rant. Is there some possibility of a vendetta here? Sure. Is this a case of the French nation being consumed with irrational jealousy over US athletes winning the Tour de France? Let's not be any sillier than we have to, please.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 11:59 AM on April 24, 2007
I was beginning to think we'd actually make it through one of these threads without the anti-French comment. Silly me.
posted by Mr Bismarck at 12:19 PM on April 24, 2007
I have not said anything negative about the French. I think that France as a nation has far more important issues to worry about than Americans winning the Tour de France eight years in a row. I don't agree with yay-yo's statements that bash the French. That being said I do not trust the results from this particular WADA lab. If these results had been produced by a separate lab I'd agree that Landis is definitely a cheat. I have been part of the drug testing process. Admittedly it was employment drug screening and I was preparing specimens not analyzing, but the double blind protocals that assure the integrity of the process shouldn't be too different. They are not difficult to follow and the lab's failure to do so in the first place is the main reason that there is even a debate and why the lab should never have been allowed to retest the B samples.
posted by apoch at 12:38 PM on April 24, 2007
I love this page. I read racist crap on here from various people daily and someone, I dont know how had a joke i posted erased. That is rich.. Put me up there with IMUS At least they got LBB too. ON TOPIC: He is a cheat that is gonna find a loophole out. If you dont think he cheated watch the race. He went from fading and several min behind looking old, slow, and hurt with his bad hip on the 16th stage to making up a ridiculous amount of time on one of the hardest stages the next day. It doesn't work like that.
posted by Debo270 at 02:03 PM on April 24, 2007
Debo, one of the reasons he bonked the stage before and lost so much time was because he didn't keep hydrated. The two main (non-doping related) reasons for his remarkable ride the next stage were: Hydration and Strategy. His teams strategy, and his opponents lack thereof, on that stage was an important reason for his success. He left the main pack very early which did two things, gave him plenty of time to build a lead and allowed his team car to stay right next him This was important because it gave him access to all the water he could ever want. He was able to stay hydrated (which he didn't do on 16) and used the water to keep his body cool. One of the main contibutions to muscle fatigue is overheating. By keeping his body cool he was able to extend the length of time his muscles were able to perform at their peak. His team stayd behind and tried to keep the pace for the main pack down. This is where his opponents helped him the most, they let him get ahead. They figured after his performance on the previous stage there was no way he could build a big enough lead for it to matter. When they did finally decided to try and chase him down it was too late.
posted by apoch at 02:27 PM on April 24, 2007
It was the old rope a dope trick!
posted by Fat Buddha at 03:59 PM on April 24, 2007
Oh, and a completely irrelevant side-note... TBH's FPP is wrong. Landis would be the second rider to be stripped of his title. Maurice Garin won the second ever Tour de France in 1904, but was stripped of the victory six months later when the organisers found out that he'd caught a train to the end of one of the stages. The top 4 riders on GC were all disqualified and 5th place Henri Cornet was awarded the title.
posted by afx237vi at 05:42 PM on April 24, 2007
Wow. Now that's doing a Rosie Ruiz!
posted by lil_brown_bat at 07:25 PM on April 24, 2007
I'd rather Bishop not compare the thread-of-the-moment with FPPs about black athletes. I'd also like it if we could just ignore it when/if it happens instead of focusing on it and ending up with a complete thread derail. Bperk, not to worry. LBB was in the middle of one of her mother knows best moments in a thread that was recently closed and this was just a carry over. That said, not all people have the ability to skip a comment that they have no interest in. They have to always feel like they are scolding someone (note yerfatma's interest in the thread before the derailment, also note how on topic yerfatma's post is.) Now you may notice how many people addressed yerfatma for being 'off topic'. It doesn't happen to those who have been around a while and feel like they run the place. They have the right to chime in on any thread they please and be as off topic as they want to be complaining about people who don't have interest in the posted topic, while not posting about the topic at all themselves. That said, sorry TBH, I never thought me saying; I will respect the previous opinions of fellow community members who wish for the best out of a Pro athlete. would lead to such an out cry for justice and anti-axe grinding regarding my posts (while LBB, yerfatma, and Littlelebowski proceed to grind their axes concerning my comments-of which were at least on topic). God forbid I start a Landis name generator on this thread. They'd probably call for my banishment. I have a pretty good idea of your level of interest because of my own level of interest in athlete drug testing. I've been there in other threads in the past, and you weren't a memorable presence, if indeed you were there at all. If, as you assert, you usually comment, maybe you can point me to some threads, and I'll cheerfully retract my statement. My comment: I comment on most threads where there are accusations of cheating. Retract your statement.
posted by Bishop at 07:51 PM on April 24, 2007
I think what BikeNut said bears repeating: the information contained in this leak is worthless when it comes to assessing the case against Landis. The lab results themselves might be damning, but an unsourced rumour about the lab results is not. On the fact that Landis' representative was excluded from witnessing the new tests because the USADA people didn't show -- what the fuck? The USADA and Landis are adversaries in this case. Under what logic do you let the USADA dictate whether Landis' representative can watch the tests? I also would recommend (again) Trust But Verify as the world's best information clearinghouse on this case. The blogger is not unbiased but provides a forum for all parties.
posted by Amateur at 09:08 PM on April 24, 2007
Retract your statement. Three threads = "most"? Whatever, I won't quibble. I retract the statement that you weren't a memorable presence in those threads, although I couldn't remember you. afx, apoch, Amateur and others, yes, but not you. I'll ignore your personal attacks, but seriously, you might think about retracting a few statements of your own.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:32 PM on April 24, 2007
God forbid I start a Landis name generator on this thread. Maybe a "Landis Sample Generator" instead?
posted by The Crafty Sousepaw at 09:39 PM on April 24, 2007
Three threads = "most"? I made another mistake. Sorry, I didn't know you asked for a set amount. I will gladly retract everything I said if you agree to relax with the silly personal crap. I don't want threads to be about me, in fact management has requested that we don't make threads about me (or anyone else). Notice how many people addressed me directly after you posted. 1 of them going as far as saying (in a nut shell) 'now that we're talking about it, hey Bishop, I don't like when you'...etc. Landis has been caught cheating in 1 of the biggest events in the world and you want to talk about my opinion of it. Come on now. I could have just said, Landis is a disgrace to American cycling and has set the example for our kids that it's OK to cheat. He should be banned forever. But, I don't put that much stock in it. Is it wrong? Sure it is. Am I going to lose sleep because another athlete is caught doping, I doubt it. And, If a guy like Landis is more likely to get the benefit of the doubt (even after his cheating is confirmed again) Whats wrong with me pointing that out?
posted by Bishop at 01:29 AM on April 25, 2007
TBH's FPP is wrong. Landis would be the second rider to be stripped of his title. Actually, upon reading the article, you'll notice that's where I got that fact. It was the third article I read that stated that. Thanks for the correction. On another topic: LBB and Bishop, please take your passion/hatred for each other elsewhere. You both say you'll take it to e-mail, yet refuse to, and continue to soil every thread you get involved in. You're both obviously stubborn as jackasses and are never going to change each other's minds, so why torture everybody else?
posted by The_Black_Hand at 05:26 AM on April 25, 2007
I'm with TBH. Please take the back-and-forth private. I had to look up the 1904 Tour and found this: Halfway through the race, Garin said: "If I'm not murdered before we reach Paris, I'll win the Tour de France again."
posted by SummersEve at 06:09 AM on April 25, 2007
You're both obviously stubborn as jackasses and are never going to change each other's minds, so why torture everybody else? /me stands and applauds.
posted by qbert72 at 07:45 AM on April 25, 2007
You're both obviously stubborn as jackasses and are never going to change each other's minds, so why torture everybody else? Oh! Oh! - can I play? Ahem... SummersEve - you're ugly as a mule and you smell of Campbell's Mixed Vegetable Soup.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 07:59 AM on April 25, 2007
Sorry, y'all. I took the bait and got carried away. TBH: re: being stubborn as a jackass, well, I think Bishop and I are in the company of equals there, frankly. My frustration stems primary from the fact that I agree with Bishop about a great deal, and hate to see issues that I care about undercut with what I believe to be shaky argumentation. But you are correct that my frustration is no reason to "torture" others, as you put it.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:52 AM on April 25, 2007
I think Bishop and I are in the company of equals there I agree with LBB. I have had far more 'public' disagreements with the requester. That said, the "soil every thread we get involved in" is a little over board. I don't want any "back and forth" be it public or private. I'm happy with having the ability to post my opinion here just like everyone else, with out having my personal views challenged each and every time I post. and hate to see issues that I care about undercut with what I believe to be shaky argumentation Welcome to my world of shaky argumentation: Hey Landis has been caught doping 3 times, boy I hope he finds a loop hole. Mean while, to divert attention, let's make FPPs out of the following, 'did you know that Ron Artest's dog was skinny and Mike Vick tried to sneak 50 lbs of weed onto a plane in a low tech fake water bottle. But wait, Landis has tested positive 3 times. That's OK, there is always hope that it's a conspiracy by the entire country of France.
posted by Bishop at 09:56 PM on April 25, 2007
SummersEve - you're ugly as a mule and you smell of Campbell's Mixed Vegetable Soup. I guess Ms. Passive and Mr. Aggressive are still at it, so... Weedy, you would never say something like that about a fellow Canadian, so why are you always picking on the Americans? Also, your sweaters are ugly and they smell like bong water.
posted by SummersEve at 06:17 AM on April 26, 2007
I guess Ms. Passive and Mr. Aggressive are still at it, so... I apologized and acknowledged my fault; if this is your response, to hell with you.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 07:11 AM on April 26, 2007
Not sure he meant you (see directly above his comment). "Ms. Passive" seems a wild mischaracterization.
posted by yerfatma at 07:57 AM on April 26, 2007
Also, your sweaters are ugly and they smell like bong water. Yeah. Haven't figured out how to get rid of that. Bounce is shit. And, I love all my fellow Canadians! Except those dirty Manitobans. They can all get gonorrhea and die.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 09:02 AM on April 26, 2007
Weedy, try Febreeze. Works wonders for me. (Maybe they don't have Febreeze in Canada.)
posted by hawkguy at 09:17 AM on April 26, 2007
Why do you hate America, Weedy?
posted by SummersEve at 09:18 AM on April 26, 2007
You know, he doesn't support the troops, either. You can just go to hell, SE. You go to hell and you die!
posted by The_Black_Hand at 09:57 AM on April 26, 2007
In Seve's defense, it's not that he doesn't support the troops. It's just that he has a really poor memory. Right at this moment he's trying to remember how it is that he knows that Weedy hates Manitobans.
posted by The Crafty Sousepaw at 12:12 PM on April 26, 2007
What's a Manitoban?
posted by SummersEve at 03:50 PM on April 26, 2007
I think a Manitoban is a sled for men. Wait, why is it capitalized? Is it a brand name? Wait, a sled can't get gonorrhea. Maybe a Manitoban is a member of an elite club of male sled riders?
posted by MrFrisby at 04:05 PM on April 26, 2007
I don't agree with yay-yo's statements that bash the French. Did I say something to bash the French? I just implied that they don't like losing their own race, EVERY YEAR. I also brought up the fact that their doctors believe that Cancer is a performance enhancing disease. You got a problem with that? Go eat some ass cheese.
posted by yay-yo at 02:02 PM on April 27, 2007
What exactly is "ass cheese"?
posted by tommybiden at 04:15 PM on April 27, 2007
The curious thing about these results is that the A samples were negative. Unless both samples are positive, it is considered a negative result. The suspicious thing about this is how they excluded his expert when they were running the tests. It seems like a conflict of interest to use the same lab to conduct these tests that conducted the original disputed result. Especially when a large part of the Landis case is the number of procedural errors that were committed in the testing of the Stage 17 sample. Admittedly, I am biased. I want Landis to be innocent. I am willing to keep an open mind, but it'd be easier to believe these results if a separate lab had run the tests and his expert had been able to oversee the testing.