12/03/24
September 20, 2007
Hidden: Floyd Landis loses arbitration: : by a 2-1 vote, an arbitration panel voted to "uphold the results of Landis's positive test" in the 2006 Tour de France. If Landis does not appeal, he will be stripped of his 2006 Tour de France title and be suspended from racing for two years. Full text of the decision here.
posted by lil_brown_bat to other at 03:22 PM - 144 comments
The decision comes to an interesting conclusion. The initial test with high testosterone:epitestosterone ratio was ruled unreliable. But subsequent carbon isotope ratio test is considered reliable, so Floyd is considered guilty. Basically, it says the test we originally thought we caught you on was wrong, but that's okay, we found another one that supports our original conclusion. With logic like that, any athlete caught should just give up immediately and accept whatever punishment WADA decides to dole out. Don't even ask for the B sample to be tested. You're going to lose no matter what the outcome. Mounting an appeal just prolongs the agony.
posted by BikeNut at 03:55 PM on September 20, 2007
After the 2007 Tour de France, who isn't cheating? I think they should dispense with the tests and then the team with the best doping strategy will win since thats the real biking competition.
posted by irunfromclones at 04:19 PM on September 20, 2007
All this surprises anyone why exactly? They should just kill off cycle racing as a sport, or as irunfromclones says, just let 'em get drugged to the hilts and have at it.
posted by Drood at 04:56 PM on September 20, 2007
They should just kill off cycle racing as a sport NFL too? Baseball? Track and field? Just scrap the Olympics? Even golf has had its drug controversies of late, kill that off too?
posted by afx237vi at 05:14 PM on September 20, 2007
Trust But Verify has a lot of good analysis on the decision. They are biased towards Landis' point of view, but still are providing a lot of info as to the why behind the decision instead of focusing solely on the end result.
posted by apoch at 06:24 PM on September 20, 2007
Anyone who knows anything related to the handling of laboratory analytical can look at this and see setup all the way. It's all about "chain of custody" and is standard sample handling protocol and is adopted as industry practice in the medical, environmental, and other fields relying on this sort of data. There were samples missing, lost and apparently reappearing again out of nowhere, which is what Floyd Landis' claim is. This being the case the "chain" of custody, something that the handling laboratory is supposed to protect was broken and therefore once this happens all sample data is considered INVALID! Other things can break the chain such as the samples not arriving at the lab at proper temperature to name just one of many, because this throws off the results. The knuckleheads in this arbitration would rather sacrifice the American to make this go away than admit they couldn't ensure the un-tampering of samples in this or any sport to save their lives. Looks like the French authorities here finally succeeded with Landis where they could not with Lance Armstrong. What a shame!
posted by whodatman at 07:55 PM on September 20, 2007
I'll bet sometime in the near future, they'll come up with a new test, and realize the tests they're giving now are giving false readings on these incredibly conditioned athletes. Just think about what these guys are doing, riding 100 to 150 miles a day sitting on those skinny ass bicycle seats six hours a day. Not to mention riding at a tempo must humans couldn't tolerate for 5 minutes much less six hours. There has to be some sort of different chemistry going on inside these guys.I've done all the basic sports, baseball, football, hockey, basketball, bicycle racing is by far the hardest sport I've ever competed in.
posted by MGDADDYO at 08:02 PM on September 20, 2007
Arbitration panel member Chris Campbell's dissent provides a lot of detail and insight into this whole case. Given he was Landis' choice for panel, you may consider his opinion biased, but he raises a lot of serious questions about how things are done at LNDD.
posted by BikeNut at 09:14 PM on September 20, 2007
NFL too? Baseball? Track and field? Just scrap the Olympics? Even golf has had its drug controversies of late, kill that off too? Sounds very good to me. I realise you posted that thinking you'd illicit the other response, but you won't from me. I am utterly disgusted with the cesspool that is professional sports these days.
posted by Drood at 11:34 PM on September 20, 2007
Booby Bonds, Mark McGuire, Ralpel Parmario, head coach of Patriots, etc., etc. Ive had it. I can't take it anymore. Cheaters has invaded all sport, business practices and almost all aspects of all our lives. Almighty dollar is root of problem and I don't have a clue how to solve the dilemia. I am physically depressed over all the contempt pro athletes (who cheat) have for the public that pay their salaries. I have not watch a pro sporting event since the testimony of Mark McGuire and I probaly will not until cheaters are kicked out of the sport with only one infraction.
posted by brickman at 11:43 PM on September 20, 2007
Languages are dying in Australia. Eat your grammar.
posted by The Crafty Sousepaw at 12:41 AM on September 21, 2007
I am physically depressed over all the contempt pro athletes (who cheat) have for the public that pay their salaries. I have not watch a pro sporting event since the testimony of Mark McGuire and I probaly will not until cheaters are kicked out of the sport with only one infraction. Sounds as if your time here will be short lived due to the above, thats too bad. Before you go, I just have a question for you. When did Mark McGwire ever test positive for any substances, or get caught with any, that were banned by MLB?
posted by jojomfd1 at 12:42 AM on September 21, 2007
To Drood and brickman: you're of course welcome to have whatever attitude you want towards elite-level sporting competition in the modern day, but: 1. I get the sense from both of you -- and please do correct me if I'm wrong -- that you don't know that much about the Landis case per se, and are lumping this in with your more generalized contempt for what you believe to be the state of "cheating" in elite-level sports (see below for why I put that in quotes). In fact, as you can tell if you read some of the other comments in this thread and follow some of the links, the "prosecution" side in the Landis case had holes in it big enough to drive a truck through. The validity of anti-doping agencies' rulings rests (among other things) on scrupulous adherence to rigorous testing procedures and information control, and they clearly failed in that. 2. The word "cheating" troubles me, because the justification for anti-doping regulation is not and never has been to prevent "cheating". It has been to prevent the use of substances that are both performance-enhancing and harmful to the user (or believed to be so). The rationale is that if the use of these substances is permitted, athletes will have no choice but to use them in order to be competitive, with damaging results to their health. It is crucial to be very clear on that rationale and that mission, because the enforcement of anti-doping regulations involves a rather substantial invasion of the individual's privacy. The sole justification for this invasion of privacy is to prevent a greater harm, that being to the athletes' health, not to (as many nowadays would have it) get rid of "cheating" or "create a level playing field" or any such nonsense.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 07:57 AM on September 21, 2007
I am physically depressed over all the contempt pro athletes (who cheat) have for the public that pay their salaries. I have not watch a pro sporting event since the testimony of Mark McGuire and I probaly will not until cheaters are kicked out of the sport with only one infraction. It's interesting that for someone who do longer watches sports, that the athletes can make you physically depressed.
posted by jmd82 at 08:11 AM on September 21, 2007
I followed the arbitration hearing as it occurred by reading the transcripts of testimony. The lab errors were bad enough that I came to the conclusion there was no way to know if Landis doped or not. The most surprising thing about the majority ruling was that they came to the same conclusion, paragraph 290 of the Majority Decision, "The Panel does, however note that the forensic corrections of the Lab reflect sloppy practice on its part. If such practises continue it may well be that in the future an error like this could result in the dismissal of an AAF finding by the Lab." It's bad enough that in the future a result might not be accepted, but this time it's good enough? I particularly like paragraph 311. "In response to these assertions the Panel finds that the practises of the Lab in training its employees appears to lack the vigor the Panel would expect in the circumstances given the enormous consequences to athletes of an AAF. Furthermore, the other matters introduced in evidence and referred to in this section do give some cause for concern. Nevertheless, like other parts of the evidence in this matter there are no ISL Rule violations that might result in the Panel accepting the Respondent's allegations as affecting the AAF in this case." Basically, yes, they are incompetent, but not incompetent enough for us to overturn their findings. The more I read the more I come to the conclusion that athletes are guilty until proven innocent. It seems like the Labs are judge and jury. If the athlete wants to appeal the lab findings, the burden of proof is on the athlete to prove his innocence instead of the lab to prove his guilt. Ethically, I find this state of affairs to be appalling. I cannot condone the system the Anti Doping Agencies are using because there are no checks or balances. Furthermore, there is no universal system. If the Arbitration Panel had found Landis innocent, the French ADA could have easily filed sanctions against him and banned him from competing in France, even though he'd been found innocent. The system is not fair and needs a drastic overhaul from top to bottom and beginning to end. Results shouldn't be leaked before a confirmation. Labs shouldn't know who is being tested for what and a separate lab should run the confirmation tests. At the very least if tests need to be run because the athlete is protesting the result, the lab who is being questioned shouldn't be the one to run the confirmation tests. The Arbitration Panel should be truly independent. There should be a group of certified arbiters and the panel should be picked at random, instead of cherry picked by the parties in the case. Lastly, I wish people would give the issue the study it deserves instead of relying on the verdict to form their opinion, especially when the processes is as warped as it is.
posted by apoch at 08:52 AM on September 21, 2007
Cycling is killing itself with these processes. Yes people are using illegal substances. There's just no way with the current system to know who is and who isn't. They sabotage the results so much that you have to wonder if they are framing the guilty. There's just no way to know if they are planting the evidence, or if it was really there, or if it was really there and they are planting it. They have zero credibility.
posted by Familyman at 09:31 AM on September 21, 2007
I know this race was long ago but does anyone remember what happened??? Floydwent from several minutes back and hurt and about to drop out to waking up the next day and smoking everyone. HE CHEATED. He had to. Did the lab mess up. Probably, but he had like 4 times the level of testosterone he should. They didnt mess up that much. When did Floyd become the victim????????
posted by Debo270 at 09:44 AM on September 21, 2007
HE CHEATED. He had to. The prosecution rests, your honor.
posted by SummersEve at 09:54 AM on September 21, 2007
I m depressed by all the negative reports from the news. You know it is possible to watch the news and be depressed without actually watching a sporting event. Mark Mcguire- I live in St. Louis and no one but no one was more excited about the record he set. By not answering questions at Senate hearing is upsetting. I don't care WHAT THE RECORD BOOKS SAY ROGER MARIS IS THE STILL SINGLE SEASON HOLDER AND HANK AARON HOLDS THE RECORD FOR HOME RUNS.
posted by brickman at 09:54 AM on September 21, 2007
Sorry. I know you want more of an explanation of why I feel he cheated or proof of some type but, I would say a positive test and the unbelievable comeback does it for me. Everyone wants to hang bonds with no proof and free Landis with proof against. I smell hypocrisy
posted by Debo270 at 09:58 AM on September 21, 2007
I m depressed by all the negative reports from the news. Then maybe you need some professional help with that. I'm not taking a dig at you, I'm serious. You don't control the world; you can get some control over your response to it.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:00 AM on September 21, 2007
Sorry. I know you want more of an explanation of why I feel he cheated or proof of some type but, I would say a positive test and the unbelievable comeback does it for me. Everyone wants to hang bonds with no proof and free Landis with proof against. I smell hypocrisy Wow, where to begin? Well, first off, I don't care about an explanation of why you believe Landis cheated, but I would like you to reexamine your position in light of the evidence that the testing procedure that provided your so-called "proof" was substantially flawed. If you don't want to do that, that's up to you, but to me, that's a "don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up" position. Second, "everyone" doesn't want to do anything, so toss that red herring on the compost heap where it begins. Third, the situations of Bonds and Landis are apples and oranges, or perhaps apples and wankel rotary engines. We're talking different regulations, different lists of banned substances, different testing and enforcement procedures, different sanctions and -- this is the big part -- very, very different rights of the accused. Even if you're just talking about the court of public opinion, you can't put them side by side, because Landis and Bonds responded to the charges against them in completely different ways. Why would you expect similar reactions? How can you call hypocrisy?
posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:08 AM on September 21, 2007
I am sorry i got involved in the exact same steriod debate that goes on at least once a week here. Every case, appeal, and hearing has to sides. you like yours. I like mine. He tested positve, while mounting one of the biggest comebacks in tour history and looked like a liar in every interview i saw. I can not see how anyone(sorry a large percentage of the people who post here) could not see that. In all honesty i dont really care but I think if anyone believes him they must also be on crazy pills like Floyd and should be tested at the drug testing facility of their choice.
posted by Debo270 at 10:29 AM on September 21, 2007
Somewhat related: former Québec cycling superstar Geneviève Jeanson, now banned for doping, has finally admitted she took EPO from the age of 16, after years of vehement denial and plans for legal procedures all over the place.
posted by qbert72 at 10:42 AM on September 21, 2007
He tested positve, while mounting one of the biggest comebacks in tour history and looked like a liar in every interview i saw. I can not see how anyone(sorry a large percentage of the people who post here) could not see that. Maybe it's just that I question whether the test by which he "tested positive" was legitimate, whether big comebacks are "proof" of PED use, and whether "looking like a liar" should be grounds for losing a major title and four years of competition. I like something a bit more like due process. And, since you made an earlier comparison with Bonds: what court was Bonds tried in, and what smackdown has he received, exactly? Landis is facing a wee bit more than public scorn, here. In all honesty i dont really care but I think if anyone believes him they must also be on crazy pills like Floyd and should be tested at the drug testing facility of their choice. Sure, let's just piss-test everyone who does anything you think is a wee bit off...good plan...
posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:52 AM on September 21, 2007
Sure, let's just piss-test everyone who does anything you think is a wee bit off...good plan... I would never do that because the test is unreliable!!!!!!!!!
posted by Debo270 at 10:55 AM on September 21, 2007
but he had like 4 times the level of testosterone he should Actually, his testosterone level was below normal. It was his T/E ratio that was high due to an abnormally low epitestoterone level. But that is same T/E test that panel said was unreliable due to lab errors.
posted by BikeNut at 11:03 AM on September 21, 2007
We can't go basing our opinion of these people on how they look - if we did that, we'd have to slip Michael Rasmusen into a medium oven for 10 minutes a lb plus 20 minutes and then serve him up with some roast potatoes and call him a chicken dinner. There are a number of arguments going on above that I'm not interested in getting into here, so will simply say: 1. Thanks LBB for this comment. The second part in particular struck me as something that I've always known and understood, but never really been able to put into words properly quite as well as that. 2. No matter what Floyd did or did not do, the process by which he has been convicted tastes very flawed to me. The best result from all of this would be a revision of how it all works. In slightly (but not very) related news today, Dick Pound has had a snipe at the powers that govern golf when they revealed that they would start dope testing, but not using WADA's list, rather a list of their own. Quite validly, Dick wants to know: "Is there anything on the list under the world anti-doping code that you think your players should be able to take? And if there is, then golf should indicate what they think their athletes should be able to take that the rest of the athletes around the world can't."
posted by JJ at 11:40 AM on September 21, 2007
I am physically depressed over all the contempt pro athletes Wouldn't being physically depressed involve some kind of large object being placed on top of you, thereby physically holding down or "depressing" you? Now if you are emotionally depressed over the state of PEDs in sports than I would suggest getting a good strong grip on reality.
posted by HATER 187 at 11:46 AM on September 21, 2007
Debo, I remember the race, I watched it live. I remember Stage 17 vividly. He didn't have to cheat to win that race. You assume that he had to cheat to make up the time. If this was a sprint, I'd agree with you. But this is an endurance race. The riders are not going at 100% all the time. They'd never make it if they did. Landis' comeback are the results of three things: 1. Great strategy by Landis and team Phonak. 2. The peloton's assumption we couldn't make it back. 3. (which follows from two.) Poor strategy by the other teams. Let me break the stage down for you. They start the race and very shortly, Landis breaks off. A small group of riders go with him and Team Phonak moves to the front of the Peloton. Team Phonak sets a slow pace for the Peloton to give Landis extra time. Landis, being one of the best cyclist on the planet, ends up breaking free of those that went with him because they aren't the elite riders. Once Landis riding alone he has a team car right behind him. Anytime he needs extra water bottles he has them right there. Big advantage on a hot day and a long stage. He's constantly dumping water over himself to keep himself cool and staying hydrated so he doesn't crash like the day before. (Dehydration being the reason he bonked on stage 16.) While this is going on, Phonak is still trying to keep the Peloton to a leisurely pace. Eventually the team leaders decide Landis' breakaway is too much of a threat, but they come to this decision too late. It was a very mountainy stage and Landis is an excellent climber. Their chase attempt is also hindered by lack of cooperation from all the teams. End of the day, Landis makes up a huge time gap and goes on to bridge the gap in subsequent stages and wear the Yellow into Paris. He could never have made that big a breakaway on a flat stage, and the only reason this one stuck was because nobody cared about him until it was too late. At one point in the race Oscar Pereiro made up twenty minutes. Why? Nobody bothered to give chase. Phonak didn't bother to reign him and let him wear the yellow for a little bit. Floyd took back the jersey in the mountains rather easily (before he bonked). My point is this, just because you make up a big chunk of time doesn't mean you cheated. Strategy is a huge part of cycling and if you ignore that you cannot make an informed analysis of the events.
posted by apoch at 11:58 AM on September 21, 2007
He tested positve, while mounting one of the biggest comebacks in tour history and looked like a liar in every interview i saw. I can not see how anyone(sorry a large percentage of the people who post here) could not see that. Your argument is a tautology: he's guilty of testing positive because he tested positive. You have all the right in the world to your side of the argument, but if this is a debate, let's debate facts, not appearances. What do you make of the fact the Olympics are right around the corner, which means if WADA or whatever body were to admit their testing is unreliable, the Olympics might turn into a drug free-for-all; do you think that may have influenced the result of this arbitration?
posted by yerfatma at 12:03 PM on September 21, 2007
On Friday July 14, 2006 Stage 12 Oscar Pereiro was in 46th place and 28 minutes and 50 seconds behind Floyd Landis. On Saturday July 15, 2006 Stage 13 Oscar Pereiro was wearing the yellow jersey with a lead of 1 minute 29 seconds over Floyd Landis. He made up 30 minutes and 19 seconds in one stage. He must have cheated!
posted by apoch at 12:21 PM on September 21, 2007
No i dont think that influenced the results. The same test that led to his suspension and stripping of title has been used to suspend and strip dozens of others. There is an approved test, he took it, he failed. now man up and face the consequences No one here is asking about the dozen or so other people suspended for failing the same test. ANSWER THIS If the test is so flawed why have all of the other cyclists suspended not fought it.
posted by Debo270 at 12:25 PM on September 21, 2007
Debo, I don't know if the test is flawed or not, but the manner in which the LNDD ran the test is flawed. If you read the Minority Opinion you will see why so many of us are skeptical of the outcome of the arbitration hearing.
posted by apoch at 12:30 PM on September 21, 2007
ANSWER THIS If the test is so flawed why have all of the other cyclists suspended not fought it. One possible reason is that Dick Pound and WADA have resolutely cultivated a culture of, "If you object to the tests/rules/procedures, you must be guilty." Raising objections places an athlete under suspicion, and who needs it?
posted by lil_brown_bat at 12:37 PM on September 21, 2007
I would rather face suspicion then unfounded guilt
posted by Debo270 at 12:43 PM on September 21, 2007
Debo, I'd continue to debate you, but you aren't actually rebutting anything. Until you start responding to the facts that myself and others have provided you, there is no point in discussing this with you. If you are serious about having a discussion, do some research on the issues at hand, read the testimony provided during the hearing, come to your conclusion based on the facts presented and then highlight the reasons behind your decision to decide Floyd is guilty. Until then, your opinion is baseless and thus worthless.
posted by apoch at 12:48 PM on September 21, 2007
I would rather face suspicion then unfounded guilt What on earth is "unfounded guilt"?
posted by lil_brown_bat at 01:08 PM on September 21, 2007
yerfatma: What do you make of the fact the Olympics are right around the corner, which means if WADA or whatever body were to admit their testing is unreliable, the Olympics might turn into a drug free-for-all; do you think that may have influenced the result of this arbitration? Now there's a very interesting point, and one that I had not considered. Pound strikes me as a zealot and an empire-builder: "guilty until proven innocent" is absolutely how he operates (and that's not hyperbole, not a bit), and he would piss-test Little Leaguers if he could. Admitting to fallibility before the Olympics is not something I can see him doing, regardless of what the truth is.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 01:11 PM on September 21, 2007
Unproven guilt Sorry. Let me throw one more worthless pointless thought your way. The only fact anywhere is that he failed the same test given by the same people that give all the tests. That is good enough for me. I have not read a single comment from anyone saying they feel he is innocent, just that the test was not done correctly. Also, apoch keeper of facts, all you have said is it is possible to make up lots of time. I know that, but Oscar Pereiro didnt test positive and if he did, I would call him a cheater too.
posted by Debo270 at 01:13 PM on September 21, 2007
I think Landis is innocent. I think that testimony in the arbitration hearing proved that there is no way to ascertain guilt or innocence based on the test results because of the various procedural errors during the performance of the test. The test result is unreliable. Which means he should have been found innocent. "Floydwent from several minutes back and hurt and about to drop out to waking up the next day and smoking everyone. HE CHEATED. He had to." Your argument here is: He made up lots of time, ergo, he cheated. By that logic Pereiro cheated too. Which was my point to begin with. Strategy is far more reasonable explanation for Floyd's comeback then some testosterone patch or injection. Side note: Floyd wasn't hurt on Stage 16. Well, no more than having a degenerated hip, but that was nothing new. "He failed the same test given by the same people that give all the tests." LNDD doesn't do all the tests. The do handle all the tests for Le Tour. In fact the French Open changed their lab from LNDD to the WADA lab in Montreal for the most recent tournament. They claim it was due it being cheaper to run in Montreal. But I think lack of reliablity probably has something to do with it. You still haven't provided any facts. Other atheletes have protested. Landis was just the first to request an open hearing. Normally we don't get an insight into the process. Arbitration isn't eactly the most fair of processes in America. Did you know that when it comes to Corporation vs Consumer Arbitrations, the Arbiters side with the corporation 98.4% of the time? Yeah, some how I doubt the consumer is wrong that often. When the corporation doesn't get a say in who the arbiters are, corporation success rate drops to 64%. The same procedural problems are in place with ADA vs Athlete arbitration. The USADA pays the bill and if you don't side with them, how likely are they to select you the next time you get to pick? The test result coming up positive isn't in dispute. The validity of the test is what is disputed. The validity of the process is in dispute. The fairness of the process is in dispute. The result is not. He is innocent. The test was not properly run. The process isn't fair and thus invalid.
posted by apoch at 01:33 PM on September 21, 2007
Now there's a very interesting point I stole it from something I read online this week. No original thought being done here.
posted by yerfatma at 01:42 PM on September 21, 2007
You have all the right in the world to your side of the argument, but if this is a debate, let's debate facts, not appearances. Ah, but the appearances matter so much more don't they? Rightly or wrongly, fairly or unfairly, athelete's fault or governing bodies fault, Debo's opinion (which I share) is the popular one. And cycling is going to take decades to repair it's reputation. The sport has suffered such serious harm that I think you can put both parties at fault, wrap it all up in a nice little bow and flush it. It's hard for any casual observer to view this sport with anything but the utmost skepticism - and that's totally deserved. The governing body isn't even suspending riders at the rate the teams are firing them. How can I be expected to trust that any of it is on a level playing field?
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 01:57 PM on September 21, 2007
As I said earlier, Weedy, it was never about a "level playing field". I know that people keep bringing this in, but it really is an important distinction.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 03:01 PM on September 21, 2007
Boy, I'ts like a fireman friend of mine stated "where there's smoke there fire" If all the so called tests are in question. Why is Landis win being revoked. Did it go through a process adopted by a governern board. After all, he wasn't tar and feathered. He had his due process and lost. I must admit not following the case very closely however whenever suspected cheating comes up in the news I see red. I'm probably older then most of the contributors for this blog and remember when baseball and other sports was played for the love of the game and fairness dictated attitude. And by the way I'am not depress in general sense. Only in the sports arena of today. I don't need professional help and to suggest that I do I'll need to see your PH.d or M.D.
posted by brickman at 03:30 PM on September 21, 2007
If all the so called tests are in question. Why is Landis win being revoked. Did you read any of the responses that were written to your previous comments? That question has been answered, in spades, with links. Go read the answers. Did it go through a process adopted by a governern board. No. Next question? He had his due process and lost. There is substantial doubt that he had due process. I must admit not following the case very closely Then maybe you should pick up some facts before making assertions like "He had his due process and lost". I'm probably older then most of the contributors for this blog I dunno, we got a guy around here somewhere that was Babe Ruth's batboy, or something. and remember when baseball and other sports was played for the love of the game and fairness dictated attitude Sure it did. And by the way I'am not depress in general sense. Only in the sports arena of today. I don't need professional help and to suggest that I do I'll need to see your PH.d or M.D. Then don't use the phrase "physically depressed" when you mean "disgusted for no rational reason over an issue that I have not bothered to get the facts on".
posted by lil_brown_bat at 04:04 PM on September 21, 2007
I don't know if Landis is innocent - none of us do - the only one who knows for sure is Landis. I am however, a Ph.D. chemist who knows something about the tests in question. The whole question of whether "tests are valid" is off the mark - any chemical test, no matter how simple, is only as good as the expertise of the person conducting it and the integrity of the sample they are testing. So citing use of a test in other cases as evidence of its reliability is not relevant. If the lab screwed up this time, the results of the test are meaningless, even if they ran the same test 100 times before without any problems. Furthermore, lack of appeals by others accused using the same test has no bearing. They may have lacked the financial means to contest their positive test - most cyclist, runners, etc are not able to mount the $2,000,000 defense that Landis did. Two things about this case bother me. First, from scientific viewpoint, the metabolite results reported in the IRMS are physiologically questionable and inconsistent with known steroid metabolism. This was pointed out by one expert witness (Amory), but apparently only one member of panel understood the implication. Second, the appeal process stacks the deck so high against the athlete that the chance of a successful appeal is essentially nil. Something just smells bad to me when WADA prevents any employee of a WADA accredited lab from testifying on behalf of an athlete, even if they know that WADA screwed up the test and got it wrong. Given the implications for the athlete (and the sport), I think WADA needs to go extra mile to demonstrate their results are above question. That should include allowing peers at other WADA labs critique each other.
posted by BikeNut at 04:37 PM on September 21, 2007
Words I use are my affair and you have a right to comment anyway you want however I have a right for things to be for my grandson (that right I'am a grandfather) the way it was for me a child. The wonder of entering ballpark, watching the player that I idolizied playing with determination, conviction and fairness. Is this to much to ask? Call me a romantic and idealist but I not going to compromise my belief no matter what you write. Landis is labeled a cheater by some authority. You can write a million reasons poking holes in this decision. The facts and results remain unadultered. I made a mistake with you, I see a degree in Juris Prudence aka attorney not a Ph.d or M.D. What substancial doubt are you quoting? Do you think the lab, committee or whatever has a personal vendetta against the guy? Are you a conspirary buff? I suggest you look into the JFK assasination
posted by brickman at 04:39 PM on September 21, 2007
I nominate brickman for the crown of ucla/the old man. What did someone say about where there's smoke? My solution would be to allow Landis to keep competing but we make him use asterisk shaped wheels.
posted by THX-1138 at 04:46 PM on September 21, 2007
Your argument here is: He made up lots of time, ergo, he cheated. By that logic Pereiro cheated too. Which was my point to begin with. Strategy is far more reasonable explanation for Floyd's comeback then some testosterone patch or injection. Side note: Floyd wasn't hurt on Stage 16. Well, no more than having a degenerated hip, but that was nothing new. Hmm, I disagree. Pereiro simply wasn't seen as a threat. He was over half an hour down, he's a solid yet unspectacular climber and he can't time trial. The bunch allowed him to get away because he wasn't a danger to them (although they turned out to be wrong). Pereiro wasn't chased, but Landis was. Sure, the organisation was a little lacking at first, but CSC (O'Grady in particular) really put the hammer down in the valley before the final climb. And they made no impact at all. Also, the bunch ambled all the way to the finish line on the Pereiro day, but Evans, Kloeden and co raced up the climb after Landis. After such an effort for over 80 kilometres, I find it implausible that Landis could hold that gap right until the end.
posted by afx237vi at 04:56 PM on September 21, 2007
afx, yes, they let Pereiro go. Phonak and Landis let him go, not caring, knowing they'd catch up eventually. The peleton that day started out thinking Floyd was out of it. Towards the end they realized they had made a huge mistake and they failed to pull him in. I have no problem believing that Landis, who was a better climber than anyone that year, was able to hold his lead. He had done a better job of pacing himself up to that point. He was well hydrated (alone, with the car right there, it was easy to get new water bottles, which it isn't so easy to do at the head of the peleton.) The chasers were wasting energy trying to catch him while he had conserved it with his early lead and better situation in which to pace himself. Unless you a superb climber it is hard to chase down anyone in the mountains. Those were unrated climbs that day and except for Stage 16 in which he bonked he had been the best climber of the tour. I didn't hear anyone say how Landis' breakaway was unbelievable the day after. A lot of people said it was amazing and one of the greatest comeback, but I don't remember anyone talking about he had to have cheated to do it until after the (leaked) test result.
posted by apoch at 05:40 PM on September 21, 2007
I am however, a Ph.D. chemist who knows something about the tests in question . . . You fail the Internet Debate Test. Your argument is unconvincing because: 1. Failure to use ALL CAPS 2. A distressing lack of folk wisdom 3. Your Appeal to Authority makes sense Please try to redeem yourself by discussing the chemical process wherein smoke could be created without inflaming a fuel agent. Thanks for the info.
posted by yerfatma at 05:44 PM on September 21, 2007
Words I use are my affair and you have a right to comment anyway you want however I have a right for things to be for my grandson (that right I'am a grandfather) the way it was for me a child. The wonder of entering ballpark, watching the player that I idolizied playing with determination, conviction and fairness. Is this to much to ask? Call me a romantic and idealist but I not going to compromise my belief no matter what you write. The Old Man is back! We missed you! NOT.
posted by tommybiden at 10:28 PM on September 21, 2007
BikeNut- I have been reluctant to comment on this thread because I honestly do not know enough about cycling or the testing procedures. Those that like Landis and/or cycling seemed to support him while those that do not like Landis and/or cycling were against. I looked at the transcripts and the articles, but still not sure of it all. I am a lot more informed after reading your post, thanks. I still am unsure which way I lean on it, but great to get some inside info on the testing and making it clearer to me. (In case you have not noticed I am neither a cycling enthusiast or a scientist).
posted by urall cloolis at 11:22 PM on September 21, 2007
I'd like to see Rosanne Rosanadana get involved in this Dick Pound dogpile...
posted by El Camino Warrior at 12:23 AM on September 22, 2007
I'm not the old man you refer to
posted by brickman at 11:57 AM on September 22, 2007
Hater 187 Forgot to post last time but your a really funny guy. I'am serious, you can quit your current job and hone your skills to comedic work. Suggest becoming a clown-all you need is suit and nimble fingers to make animal balloons. Sure to be many kiddie birthday parties on Saturday afternoons.
posted by brickman at 04:54 PM on September 22, 2007
Landis seems to have lost the title. As for killing off cycling, many think that about the NHL, and MLB when it seemed like there would be a strike in 2002. Stephen A. Smith hinted at it when Donaghy was arrested. Many believe the MLS has become one of the four major sports, but I ted to believe it is one of now five major sports. If MLB, MLS, NBA, and NFL are the four sports. Is the NHL or MLL (lacrosse) the fifth organized sport, the alternative to the four?
posted by SFValley_Dude at 11:55 PM on September 22, 2007
First of all as a road bike fan for over 30 years, ( I have a bad bike now) I believe Floyd because a lot of cyclists here in North Texas believe in him also.In addition, one of the worlds biggest shops( and consistently rated #1) supports him. That said,this stuff is beyond political.One of the reasons I believe in Floyd is the test(s)were fucked up.Landis still has options legally. I hope he pursues them. That brings us to Lance and the French.Three Americanos have won the tour;Greg,Lance, and Floyd.The Froggies had no problemo with Greg. They consistently hated Lance. They dug the shit out of Floyd because he has cojones.I believe Lance's tour victories are suspect because of the cancer drugs he took whipped him into shape.In addition, he is a punk. He walked on his wife and kids. Then he walked on Ms. Gorgeous ass Crow. Word on the cycle track is he is into dudes.....Ola!!!
posted by sickleguy at 09:11 AM on September 23, 2007
First of all as a road bike fan for over 30 years, ( I have a bad bike now) I believe Floyd because a lot of cyclists here in North Texas believe in him also. That is a sound, logic based decision. The Froggies That sir, is an offensive term. They consistently hated Lance. They dug the shit out of Floyd because he has cojones.I believe Lance's tour victories are suspect because of the cancer drugs he took whipped him into shape. Right, most cancer patients become much better athletes because on the various drug cocktails their doctors prescribe for them. In addition, he is a punk. He walked on his wife and kids. Then he walked on Ms. Gorgeous ass Crow. Lance Armstrong is the first person ever to end his marriage? I know I'm not still with the first woman I ever loved. Word on the cycle track is he is into dudes.....Ola!!! And if he is? Is that a problem? Is there something wrong with being gay?
posted by tommybiden at 09:39 AM on September 23, 2007
Words I use are my affair and you have a right to comment anyway you want however I have a right for things to be for my grandson (that right I'am a grandfather) the way it was for me a child. Gasoline that costs a nickel a gallon?
posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:20 AM on September 23, 2007
brickman, if all you want to do is complain about how things should be like they were when you were a kid and insult members, you're going to have a tough time here at SportsFilter. According to your posts, you should be old enough, and mature enough, not to get into pissing matches that serve no constructive purpose. As for your right for "things to be for my grandson...the way it was for me a child," would you like your grandchild to not have indoor plumbing? Penicillin? The artificial heart? All the advances in technology that make life today safer and more convenient? In fact, if you want things to be the way they were while you were growing up, why are you using the internet at all?
posted by The_Black_Hand at 12:37 PM on September 23, 2007
lil_brown_bat What is it with you? Do you always try to be funny? Maybe we got off on the wrong foot and I like to stop this right now. My orginal opinion did not mention Landis. It is the tone of the news that got me upset. Why is it lately we hear about pitcher crashing and dying while under the influence of drugs and alcohol, NBA player jumping into the seats attacking fans, books written about steriod use in the MBL, foootball player hanging dogs for not performing properly for fighting, coaches videotaping opponents defensive signals and Mark McGuire not answering questions at the house committee hearing? You seem to apply all your opinions on the letter of the law while I apply them to the spirt of the law. In conclusion I apologize if my commments offended you however I now realize the generation gap (as far as you are concern) is wider than the Grand Canyon but give me this-look at sports as a monument and every incident is a chip into the statue and in time all you have is a pile of dust and when you gaze up all we see is a empty sky.
posted by brickman at 01:06 PM on September 23, 2007
Why is it lately we hear about pitcher crashing and dying while under the influence of drugs and alcohol, NBA player jumping into the seats attacking fans, books written about steriod use in the MBL, foootball player hanging dogs for not performing properly for fighting, coaches videotaping opponents defensive signals and Mark McGuire not answering questions at the house committee hearing? Because that is what's in the news. Perhaps when you reach fifteen comments you can post some links to uplifting sports stories for us.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 01:27 PM on September 23, 2007
This is my last post on this blog. I will continue to write the professional sports authorities, make my opinions know and maybe some changes will come of it. I tried to make a point and was attacked by several fellow writers. Guess I do not know any better than to strike back when attacked which was immature and childish. I leave you now, bother you no more and wish all of the best. Your opinions are not going to change. I've learned an important lesson in last few days-this really is the sound bite generation. Your not interested in the theme of a comment only snippets to attack with. I come to the conclusion it's probably not your fault. Times have changed and I am really sad for the future generation to come. Good luck in your future endenvors and may God bless. P.S. Its ok to make further comments. There always has to be a last word however no retort will be forthcoming.
posted by brickman at 03:19 PM on September 23, 2007
Times have changed and I am really sad for the future generation to come. Sincerely Yours, Every Previous Generation's Cranks
posted by yerfatma at 04:58 PM on September 23, 2007
Somebody made their stop at nohumorfilter.com. thats for sure. I just can't imagine a grandparent not understanding sarcasm. Your not interested in the theme of a comment How dare we not look past the lack of facts in brickmans post's and see the true beauty that is...... The Theme of it All. By the way what is the theme of this one: Hater 187 Forgot to post last time but your a really funny guy. I'am serious, you can quit your current job and hone your skills to comedic work. Suggest becoming a clown-all you need is suit and nimble fingers to make animal balloons. Sure to be many kiddie birthday parties on Saturday afternoons. A.) Brickman is old and forgetful B.) Hater is funny,and reminds people of a clown. C.) Brickman has a fetish about balloon animals. D.) Brickman forgot about the time he wore his birthday suit to a party with kiddie animals.
posted by jojomfd1 at 01:02 AM on September 24, 2007
Leaving aside the sweeping statements that imply that sport in "the old days" was perfect and sport now is an "empty sky" (all of which is really just to say "I'm old and I miss being young") it's an interesting question - is there more cheating in sport now? Leaving Landis out of it for a minute and looking more at what happened in this year's Tour, is the legacy of Lance a sport which now has too much money creating too much incentive to cheat? In the broader sense, is that what has happened to most professional sport?
posted by JJ at 04:40 AM on September 24, 2007
it's an interesting question - is there more cheating in sport now? I had a lengthier answer, but I'll stick to the shorter one: are you talking about cheating, or using banned performance-enhancing substances?
posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:35 AM on September 24, 2007
I guess I'm talking about both. What inspired the question was that old fella's seeming asertion that in days gone by, no one bent a rule and would rather have lost with honour than won sneakily. As an extreme, that's clearly demonstrably untrue - the fixing of the world series stands out as an example of some pretty large-scale olden days cheating - but there may be something in the feeling (more than a man mourning his lost innocence and youth). As I watch more of the rugby world cup, I am reminded that some games are all about who can cheat the best (rugby is largely a game of pushing the boundaries of the rules, evidenced by the referee constantly talking to them all like idiot children - "Number five, you're offside. Number one, stop gouging that player's eyes! Number three, stop handling the ball on the ground." And then ten minutes later he finally blows the whistle and sends them all off), but in other sports, do you feel the level of fair play has declined? With regard to substance abuse, my impression is that modern science allows athletes to edge a whole lot closer to the (relatively recently laid down) laws in most sports, making the occasional transgression all the more likely, but again I'm not sure if there are more drug cheats now or just tougher rules about what you can and can't do or take. I suppose these things have to be considered on a sport by sport basis maybe.
posted by JJ at 10:08 AM on September 24, 2007
There's certainly increasing economic incentive to cheat-- the value of one more year at the tail end of an American pro sports career can be very valuable, so HGH (and the like) become more attractive to star athletes as they age; they're attractive to the barely-good-enough at any age. We can speak of honor and righteousness, but if you're staring at the end of a minor league baseball career with a wife who's sacrificed alongside you for years, it'd be a hell of a thing to just let that brass ring get caught by someone else. I wonder how much the increase in media coverage has changed our perspectives: from instant replay to the 24-hour celebrity scandal type coverage of players' personal lives. It's a lot harder to cheat now.
posted by yerfatma at 10:57 AM on September 24, 2007
I think it's hard to say if there is more or less cheating, because "cheating" has been redefined, particularly as the rules of the game have been extended to deal with off-field matters such as wagering and with what athletes put in/do to their bodies. Wagering's not new, but both the law and athletic regulations regarding wagering have gone through a lot of changes, as have the means by which wagering takes place (and thus, the ability to wager without being caught, or the means to catch someone wagering). WRT what people put in their bodies, obviously there's been a lot of development on both sides, and the water would be muddy in any case -- but there's also the fact that one person's "cheating" method is another person's medicine, and that people who once would have been invalids can be competitive athletes nowadays. So a person with asthma can live a normal life, with the right medication...but WADA considers them a "cheater" if they try to compete in sports. It reminds me a bit of when I was in college. We had an honor code that was respected and, I believe, strongly adhered to. Then the Judicial Board (a bunch of students with transparent Star Chamber fantasies) went on a campaign of getting tough on transgressors of this and that. Their method was to add all kinds of infractions to the honor code, and their reasoning was that if they didn't want people to do something, making that something an honor code violation would make people take it much more seriously and, y'know, not do it any more. Sadly but not surprisingly, it didn't work out that way. That, I think, is where WADA has taken us. The word "cheater" is the nastiest tarbrush in sports: it's practically impossible to love sports and not hate cheating. And so, in an effort to get us all to hate those who use banned substances, Dick Pound and Co. have been using the word "cheater" very heavily in the past few years. If they can convince us that someone is a cheater, we are almost compelled to despise him. If they shout, "Cheater!" loud and long enough, they can drown out any reasoned discussion of whether cheating took place, or -- even more dangerous -- whether the rules defining this "cheating" make any sense. That was a long-winded, soapboxy answer to your original question -- has cheating increased. In short, I don't know, because the definition of "cheating" has expanded. As a sports fan, I think that that is a very bad thing indeed.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 11:38 AM on September 24, 2007
I accomplhished what I set out to do. Bloggers are taking about the situation with intelligence and with some sort of moral compass. I will always look at things from a parent perspective. Do I have a choice? Until your a parent ( some of you may be) sometimes it hard to understand the forces that children are constantly bombarded. Try as you may, to keep thing from them, its next to impossible at present day. Thanks for this last comment and I wish you all the best.
posted by brickman at 04:03 PM on September 24, 2007
Mark McGuire not answering questions at the house committee hearing Holy crap! Is his name really that hard for everyone to spell correctly? McGWIRE It's not like his name is Mientkiewicz, Krzyzewski, or Houshmandzadeh.
posted by grum@work at 06:38 PM on September 24, 2007
Mark McGuire not answering questions at the house committee hearing Holy crap! Is his name really that hard for everyone to spell correctly? McGWIRE It's not like his name is Mientkiewicz, Krzyzewski, or Houshmandzadeh. Or Belichick.
posted by tommybiden at 07:46 PM on September 24, 2007
Try as you may, to keep thing from them, its next to impossible at present day. You could always lock them in your basement.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 08:13 PM on September 24, 2007
You could always lock them in your basement. Don't be giving anyone ideas.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:49 PM on September 24, 2007
Brickman doesn't need any ideas - he controls the internet and has achieved what he set out to do apparently. I'm glad he's here. Without him, I for one may have gone on taking cheap shots almost indefinitely. It's because I'm not a parent you see. As everyone knows, that precludes me from ever knowing anything. Following on from the cheating discussion, and the thread in it that suggests money is the root cause of a lot of cheating, is there an identifiable point in time at which sport became more about the money than the sport? Again, I suppose that needs to be considered on a sport by sport basis.
posted by JJ at 03:45 AM on September 25, 2007
You could always lock them in your basement. Darn, YYM, thanks for reminding me. I was wondering where my kid was. Gee, it's really bad to get old and lose your memory.
posted by Howard_T at 08:06 AM on September 25, 2007
YYM, Is that your plan when and if you get married and have children or just a suggestion?
posted by brickman at 09:18 AM on September 25, 2007
Just a suggestion. If you prefer, a broom closet would work as well. For example, Harry Potter was locked in a broom closet on several occasions and he turned out all right.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 02:03 PM on September 25, 2007
Ya, your right if you live in a fiction world however I live in real world. I am glad it just a suggestions and not a plan cause I would worry about you and your imaginary future child.
posted by brickman at 02:17 PM on September 25, 2007
What about that movie where the imaginary child turns real? Or the Marvel Comics thing where it turned out the Scarlet Witch's babies were figments of her imagination and holding the universe together? Don't just poo-poo fake babies.
posted by yerfatma at 02:40 PM on September 25, 2007
Are you saying YYM future children are going to come from comic books? Better run down to grocery store and pick up a copy right away however handle it carefully as babies bruise easily.
posted by brickman at 02:56 PM on September 25, 2007
What about that movie where the imaginary child turns real? Wasn't that Chuckie? He's coaching the Tampa Bay Bucs now, right?
posted by lil_brown_bat at 03:19 PM on September 25, 2007
If the Bucs somehow finish the season in the basement, well, that would, uh... sorry, I've confused myself. Perhaps because I'm not a parent.* *Not a parent. You might have to read it several times. Not a parent.
posted by The Crafty Sousepaw at 03:27 PM on September 25, 2007
This is my last post on this blog. There always has to be a last word however no retort will be forthcoming. Well, except for the twelve posts you've written since. Back in my day, a man's word was his bond, you could trust someone to keep a promise. Punkass kids these days, dagnabit, can't trust none of 'em! Of course, I'm not a parent, so my opinion is worthless. I'm going to go lock myself in the basement now.
posted by tommybiden at 03:48 PM on September 25, 2007
He's the Roger Clemens of sportsfilter. I'm outa here. I'm back! I'm outa here. I'm back!
posted by justgary at 03:55 PM on September 25, 2007
I am glad it just a suggestions and not a plan cause I would worry about you and your imaginary future child. Well now I know where imaginary friends come from.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 03:58 PM on September 25, 2007
He's the Roger Clemens of sportsfilter. I'm outa here. I'm back! I'm outa here. I'm back! 1. Roger is a parent, brickman is a parent. 2. Roger is old, brickman is old. 3. Roger is a certain Hall of Famer, brickman....? Meatloaf said it best, 2 out of 3 ain't bad. On edit, YYM, where do imaginary friends come from? My parents wouldn't tell me, of course, it would have been hard to hear them explaining things through the locked door that led to the basement.
posted by tommybiden at 04:04 PM on September 25, 2007
Wait a minute, Roger Clemens just came out of the closet? Damn, it's about time. That must be what brickman set out to do. Nice freakin' job! I look forward to your next last post on this blog.
posted by The_Black_Hand at 04:18 PM on September 25, 2007
The Penultimate Ultimate. Alternatively: "Mr. Ahmadinejad, tear down that closet!"
posted by yerfatma at 04:31 PM on September 25, 2007
Oh ya about last post. I lied. Do you want to sub divide and disect this word also like you did for cheat.
posted by brickman at 04:41 PM on September 25, 2007
Ya, tommy go back to closet, basement or your bedroom. I know a joke about a closet but since there are women here I think I'll skip for now. I promise this won't be my last post.
posted by brickman at 04:46 PM on September 25, 2007
Damn.
posted by hawkguy at 04:54 PM on September 25, 2007
Oh ya about last post. I lied. Do you want to sub divide and disect this word also like you did for cheat. I'm not subdividing or disecting anything. You'll have to forgive me, I took you at your word, and thought you were telling the truth when you said you were done here. Daggummit, I thought you were an honourable old man. Ya, tommy go back to closet, basement or your bedroom. I know a joke about a closet but since there are women here I think I'll skip for now. I promise this won't be my last post. My email is posted, feel free to send it along. If it's any good, I'll post it, and credit you as the source. There have only ever been two people on this earth that have been able to tell me to go back to my room, whichever one it may be, and you couldn't hold a candle to either one. I'm thinking this might be your last post. We already know you lie, you told us so yourself.
posted by tommybiden at 05:03 PM on September 25, 2007
Motherfucker, if your closet joke is more clever than my timely and salient take-off/ mash-up of George Bush the Elder's comment about the Berlin Wall and that goofy Iranian's denial of homosexuality in the hot sands of Iran, I want to hear it. And my cursing has already chased away any proper ladies. Only slatterns would stick around. Because they are sticky by choice.
posted by yerfatma at 05:39 PM on September 25, 2007
YYM, where do imaginary friends come from? Well there isn't anything else for my imaginary future children to do.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 06:06 PM on September 25, 2007
So if he lied about not posting anymore, will we be lucky enough that he's lying about his promise that it wouldn't be his last post?
posted by apoch at 06:43 PM on September 25, 2007
Oh ya about last post. I lied. Do you want to sub divide and disect this word also like you did for cheat. I guess this would be my job, right? Okay, let me get out my word scalpel and my literary forceps and hemostats and get to work. The word "lied" is actually made up of two words: "li" and "ed". "Li" has been interpreted in many different ways -- as, for example, the symbol for lithium in the periodic table, as a traditional Chinese unit of length, or as a logarithmic interval. However, in context, it can clearly be seen that "li" is merely a phoneticization of the word "lee", a nautical term referring to the direction away from the wind. Likewise, "ed" has many possible interpretations, including a village in Sweden, an abbreviation for the word "education", or a short form of a common men's first name. Once again, however, context informs us that here, "ed" -- or, more recognizably, "ED" -- is an acronym for erectile dysfunction. Therefore, based on my keen verbal subdivision and dissection, we can see that when you say you "lied", you are trying to tell us that you faced downwind and subsequently failed to raise the mainmast. Condolences, and best wishes for an early recovery. You keep lobbin' 'em, I'll keep hittin' 'em.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 07:20 PM on September 25, 2007
!!!
posted by yerfatma at 07:59 PM on September 25, 2007
you are trying to tell us that you faced downwind and subsequently failed to raise the mainmast. Fantastic. Simply fantastic.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 08:31 PM on September 25, 2007
If/when I grow up, I want to be just like lil_brown_bat.
posted by tommybiden at 08:34 PM on September 25, 2007
you people should just get a (hotel) room and be done with it. (yes i am joking)
posted by urall cloolis at 09:12 PM on September 25, 2007
Kleiner Regen macht groBen Wind legen.
posted by brickman at 09:23 PM on September 25, 2007
Kleiner Regen macht groBen Wind legen. For those of you who don't want to check Babel Fish: Small rain makes rough wind puts. Which makes about as much sense as anything else he's "contributed" up until now. I'm still waiting for brickman to email me the "closet" joke.
posted by tommybiden at 09:46 PM on September 25, 2007
Your translation is off "Light rain makes a strong wind die down" You wasted your money on the translater.
posted by brickman at 09:55 PM on September 25, 2007
I know a joke about a closet but since there are women here I think I'll skip for now. I promise this won't be my last post. Does this mean since there women in here that you and the joke are not comming out of the closet?
posted by jojomfd1 at 12:15 AM on September 26, 2007
You wasted your money on the translater. Babel Fish is free.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 05:24 AM on September 26, 2007
You wasted your money on the translater. Spell-checker's on the Fritz as well, mein freund.
posted by yerfatma at 06:04 AM on September 26, 2007
Your translation is off "Light rain makes a strong wind die down" Yes...yes, and deep roots are not killed by the frost. p.s. are you Merry or Pippin?
posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:38 AM on September 26, 2007
Yes...yes, and deep roots are not killed by the frost. p.s. are you Merry or Pippin? ! The laughing fly falls from the wall. -Confucius (not)
posted by El Camino Warrior at 04:12 PM on September 26, 2007
Whatever happened to Luther? I miss his lack of punctuation.
posted by brainofdtrain at 05:05 PM on September 26, 2007
Mary, you sure you want to go with E.D. remark? yes__no__retract___
posted by brickman at 05:32 AM on September 27, 2007
Now my monitor has a great big ballpoint pen checkmark on it.
posted by yerfatma at 06:26 AM on September 27, 2007
Now my monitor has a great big ballpoint pen checkmark on it. And brickman's score is still at 0 out of 15, heh. I think we should change that rule, make it more like biathlon -- a certain number of misses and you have to do a penalty lap.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 07:34 AM on September 27, 2007
Mary Malmros I enjoyed your comments however I don't see a answer for my question. I'am waiting..............
posted by brickman at 09:06 AM on September 27, 2007
Okay, brickman is getting stalkerish and weird. Please stop.
posted by bperk at 09:18 AM on September 27, 2007
Oh SNAP! Real name and everything! He must have the power of link clicking. If he finds Google, it's game over.
posted by yerfatma at 09:30 AM on September 27, 2007
Mary Malmros I enjoyed your comments however I don't see a answer for my question. I'am waiting.............. Help me out here: is this the part where I'm supposed to be feeling all impressed by your amazing sleuthing skills using the interwebs? Or were you trying for "omg he FOUND ME OUT" style intimidation? Whatever, I'll make an effort to help you out here, which you will no doubt construe as...as...well, damned if I know, but I'm sure it won't be good, since you seem to have a real "me against the world" chip on your shoulder. But, for what it's worth... I'm not sure just what it is you need, brickman, but a little understanding of how spofi operates would probably help some. We try to be more than the average sports site where the "dialogue" consists mostly of a contest to see who can bellow "UR TEAM SUXXORZ MY TEAM ROOLZ" the loudest. This thread in particular involves a number of complex and substantial issues -- good fodder for thoughtful analysis, in other words. We did get quite a bit of that, but your contribution was, "Booby Bonds, Mark McGuire, Ralpel Parmario, head coach of Patriots, etc., etc. Ive had it. I can't take it anymore.", and so on. It was a rant that conflated unrelated incidents and trends under that much tattered and overused umbrella, "How Modern-Day Sports Have Gone to Hell in a Clutch Purse". Of course people, myself included, took the mickey out of you -- because what you said was silly. You don't exactly have a monopoly on saying silly things around here, but on SportsFilter, this is how the reactions tend to go: - If you said a silly thing, and meant to be silly, people may laugh along, or contribute their own foolishness. They will not, however, respond "lol" -- not if they know what's good for them. - If you said a silly thing, and meant to be taken seriously, people will take the piss out of you. This is about as certain as the sun rising. I think every single one of us who's been posting a while and is not a lurker, has said things that we meant seriously and that others thought were ridiculous -- and they let us know it. It's the flavor of heat in this particular kitchen. There are a lot of ways to handle it, but the better ones tend to feature wit, a well-developed sense of humor, an absence of ad hominem, and/or an intelligent explanation of why your original point was not ridiculous. Failure to include at least one of these generally means an increase in the piss-taking. That's just how it works here.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:36 AM on September 27, 2007
Mary , your very intelligent however if your not going to answer the question I must ascertain that your embarrassed by your comments and don't want to confirm what you wrote. I don't want to put you on the spot here, so if you want to e mail me and apoligize the matter will be dropped. If you think your comments were in good taste and decency please answer the question. I do enjoy the other quibs and jabs that have be poked at me however were they personnel?
posted by brickman at 10:21 AM on September 27, 2007
Oh SNAP! Real name and everything! You better watch it there, tough guy. We know all about you and your bookwriting.
posted by SummersEve at 11:04 AM on September 27, 2007
I do enjoy the other quibs and jabs that have be poked at me however were they personnel? Yes, yerfatma is the office manager, LBB is treasurer, Summerseve is Sales Manger, and I, however am a lowly janitor.
posted by hawkguy at 11:12 AM on September 27, 2007
And you're not on break, either.
posted by yerfatma at 11:14 AM on September 27, 2007
Yes, yerfatma is the office manager, LBB is treasurer, Summerseve is Sales Manger, and I, however am a lowly janitor. So that's why we're always broke, out of paper clips, and wading through piles of trash.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 11:14 AM on September 27, 2007
And you're not on break, either. So that's why we're always broke, out of paper clips, and wading through piles of trash. I have a laptop and wireless router hidden in my janitor's closet! SSSHHHH! don't tell anyone!
posted by hawkguy at 11:39 AM on September 27, 2007
I apparently am something that Jesus sleeps in. Or slept in. Or at least was "away in".
posted by SummersEve at 12:15 PM on September 27, 2007
Sorry SE...guess I shouldn't make fun of someone's grammar and then not check my own spelling. Karma kind of bit me in the ass on that one!
posted by hawkguy at 12:47 PM on September 27, 2007
Karma kind of bit me in the ass on that one No, it was the dogma that bit you. That was before it got run over by the karma. (OK, so it's not original. You guys don't want me in the office, so I'll just sit here and screw around in the mail room.)
posted by Howard_T at 01:18 PM on September 27, 2007
No answer from Mary as of yet. Good taste and decorum may have gone out of style in the world. I am glad other people have responed to my message for Mary. It's always good thing to stick up for your friends as long as their in the right. Also, joining a pack can be a good thing if it makes the world a better place however if it tears down or destroys , that's another matter. Mary, if your not going to give a answer. Please say so and quit skipping around the tree. Look , the German saying I gave the other night was for you to respond with some kind of apology however I guess it was over your head. The meaning was after a while cooler heads will prevail and sense will take over. I'am waitimg for your answer.
posted by brickman at 02:13 PM on September 27, 2007
I'am waitimg for your answer. I hope you packed a lunch. The guidelines of this site will have told you, if you read 'em, that if you have issues with the behavior of another member, you are to take them to the moderators. I suggest you do so and stop acting out your self-induced fit of pique in the forum.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 02:36 PM on September 27, 2007
As I recall you were the one who invited the sub division and disection of your comment. You brought it upon yourself, James Smith of St. Louis.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 02:40 PM on September 27, 2007
Ok Mary, I just wanted to feel you out and see what kind of person you are. I'am not a guy that insults intentionally for the amusment of others or to hurt their feeling. Sometimes being stubborn, willful or determined is what necessary to get things accomplished. I impore you to choose your word carefully and think about other people. Remember being the center of the universe can get very hot. Since I been on this site I've been called a Motherf&%#%er, told "can't hold a candle to" Tommy Trump parents and I have E.D. Well look back at the messages I posted. Do I deserve to be talked to like this. Well if you don't know a person, how can you make those statements. Can you all tell by a few messages and a posted bio. Maybe because no knows who you are. Would you or anybody else on this blog talk to someone like that face to face. I guess I grew up when respect and good manners were the rule-at least they were in the home my Mother and Father raised us in. I really sorry to see these things go by the way-side however I have 3 children that practice what I taught them and I guess that's a start, however small.
posted by brickman at 03:13 PM on September 27, 2007
Oh,one other thing I would like to post. If all of you are proud of the comments and messages you posted. Print them out and show them to your Parents.
posted by brickman at 03:39 PM on September 27, 2007
Stop being patronizing, brickman. We are (mostly) all adults here and we don't need your condescension. Your decision to not take the comments in the spirit in which they were intended doesn't make everyone else a juvenile delinquent.
posted by bperk at 04:04 PM on September 27, 2007
Ok Mary Please quit referring to llb by her first name. If she wanted to be called by her first name she would have used it as her sportsfilter nick.
posted by justgary at 04:33 PM on September 27, 2007
Print them out and show them to your Parents. My dad says you're a doody head. Playing knick-knack on someone's spine is just going too far.
posted by The Crafty Sousepaw at 05:00 PM on September 27, 2007
I do enjoy the other quibs and jabs that have be poked at me however were they personnel? Yes, yerfatma is the office manager, LBB is treasurer, Summerseve is Sales Manger, and I, however am a lowly janitor. Me, I'm just a lowly cog in the wheel, which is waaaay below janitor in the pecking order.
posted by tommybiden at 08:32 PM on September 27, 2007
I('ve) been , told "can't hold a candle to" Tommy Trump parents. brickman, where did I say that, and it's tommytrump, not Tommy Trump. There have only ever been two people on this earth that have been able to tell me to go back to my room, whichever one it may be, and you couldn't hold a candle to either one. Nope, no mention of my parents there. Where did I mention that you couldn't hold a candle to either of my parents? I'll wait for an answer for that. I'm still waiting for the "closet" joke to be sent along.
posted by tommybiden at 09:06 PM on September 27, 2007
"I guess I grew up when respect and good manners were the rule" - brickman In this neighborhood, it is generally good manners to discuss the topic at hand, not to hijack it so you can rant about "Booby" Bonds et al. It was off-topic. This thread was supposed to be for the discussion of the arbitration decision involving Floyd Landis. A possible direction this thread could have taken would have been to discuss the flaws in WADA and their arbitration rules, because it directly relates to the topic at hand. You then went on to admit you hadn't followed the Landis case very closely and let your emotions get in the way of an impartial analysis of the case. What's the point of that? If you wanted to know more about the situation, you could have asked questions or read the discussion on the merits of the case. "My original opinion did not mention Landis." Which is really the problem. You acted like this thread should be your personnal soapbox to rail against the evils of cheaters. That wasn't the purpose of this thread. You hijacked this discussion. "I accomplhished what I set out to do. Bloggers are taking about the situation with intelligence and with some sort of moral compass." Yeah, we were doing that despite your distractions. But you wouldn't leave well enough alone (even after you promised to!) and now the only thing being discussed is your behavior. A final note on your rudeness, bringing someone's real name into this arena is incredibly rude and inconsiderate.
posted by apoch at 04:49 AM on September 28, 2007
apoch, Your right, I won't rebate something I can not defend. Lbb knew exactly what she was doing when she made that remark. ED, are you kidding me. Look you want in on a tidbit, I actually suffer from ED. Talk about knocking the wind out of a guy. What a ego she must have. Regardless what I wrote , I would never make stupid comment like that to anyone , especially somebody I didn't know. I know this comments about my affliction is restocking your powder room and you'll probably loading your cannons as soon as this is read. Well go ahead I'll be waiting your salvos.
posted by brickman at 10:40 AM on September 28, 2007
Well go ahead I'll be waiting your salvos. Brickman, you really should read what apoch wrote more closely. It's dead on. Regardless, I'm closing this since the topic isn't being discussed any longer.
posted by justgary at 11:44 AM on September 28, 2007
"I am innocent and we proved I am innocent." No, Floyd, you didn't. Now please go away and shut up. See you in two years for your failed Tyler-style comeback.