Judging Floyd

09.21.2007 | 6:04 am

Recently, I wrote an extremely insightful piece of satire, wherein I projected that the USADA would not finish its deliberations — which have been going on since Spring — in 2035.

Can anyone truly call it a coincidence that just five days later, the hearing closed, and that we now have a verdict (one which Floyd isn’t too happy with)? No, of course it’s not a coincidence.

Clearly, my influence over the cycling community is immense. Don’t cross me. I’ll make you suffer.

Now, I’m not trying to imply anything here, but I can’t help but wonder: If Floyd had worn a Pink Fat Cyclist Jersey when he raced the Leadville 100, do you think it’s possible the outcome might have been different?

So, Is Floyd Innocent?
Since I am clearly a very important, influential, and informed person in the cycling community, I’m positive that you want my opinion on this whole mess.

So here you go. My actual opinion. I’ll stop kidding around for a minute.

My natural tendency is to believe that most people have good motives most of the time. So I believed Tyler is / was innocent, and I’m inclined to believe Floyd is innocent, too. I sure hope so, because Stage 17 in the 2006 TdF was the most inspiring race in modern times.

Innocence aside, I think that Floyd made a strong case that the lab failed in its job to provide unimpeachable results. Strong enough to provide reasonable doubt. Which means, as far as my sense of justice is concerned, that he should not have been found guilty.

So, is Floyd innocent? I think so. Should he have been found not guilty? yes.

I am, of course, interested in your opinion on this matter. As long as you agree with me.

PS: Has anyone seen Tyler lately? Is it maybe time to file a missing person report? 


  1. Comment by Derek | 09.21.2007 | 8:08 am

    So Tyler was innocent the first time… what about his most recent run-in? Wrong place wrong time… AGAIN??

  2. Comment by monogodo | 09.21.2007 | 8:10 am

    I saw Tyler in the coverage of the USPRO championships. He was racing in plain jersey & shorts, without any sponsorship.

    As for Floyd, there’s a difference between being innocent and being found not guilty. From what I know of testosterone supplements, I find it hard to believe that he was using them at all.

  3. Comment by UltraRob | 09.21.2007 | 8:14 am

    I’ve long believed that doping is common in cycling and also in other sports. However just because riders are doping doesn’t mean that the odds should be stacked against them in doping cases. USADA’s 35-0 record to me is more about rules that assure they win cases than it is that they had solid cases. To me the sloppiness of the lab is worse than Landis doping if that was really the case. They didn’t prove it to me.

  4. Comment by Blake | 09.21.2007 | 8:21 am

    There’s a long story in Bicycling this month that includes a sidebar with a lot of details about what’s up with Tyler. Unfortunately, it’s mostly bad news. Very sad.

  5. Comment by Jeff | 09.21.2007 | 8:22 am

    There is a common mis-conception on the whole “innocent until proven Guilty” thing. That is for government judicial systems where losing means being sent to jail or worse. The USADA is NOT an arm of any government and is (and should be) allowed to make its own rules. Their ultimate motive is to get to what they feel is the REAL truth, not prove guilt beyond any doubt whatsoever. The same holds true I believe even for civil cases brought in the US. “innocent until proven guilty” is out the window, ala OJ.

  6. Comment by monkeywebb | 09.21.2007 | 8:26 am

    I think Fatty summarized my feelings pretty well. The science was clearly over my head through most of the preceedings, but I still come back to my original thought upon hearing about the positive test: It just doesn’t make any sense.

  7. Comment by Nick | 09.21.2007 | 8:35 am

    I think USADA needs to provide a urine sample after that “victory”, especially considering they are 35-0.

  8. Comment by Mike Roadie | 09.21.2007 | 8:36 am

    You are right in that innocent is not the same as not guilty. Being innocent is an affirmative statement that one is positively above reproach. Being not guilty just means that there was not sufficient evidence clearly to prove guilt.

    I, too, would like to believe that Floyd (or Tyler, or Vino, or Basso, or Ulrich, or Millar, or Pantani, etc., etc., etc….) are right-thinking people who are beyond CHEATING!!! But, human nature being what it is……just think of the pressure….

    You are leading the TdF, you are captain of a well financed team, you used to be Lance’s right hand man, you’ve got an axe to grind and you just blew up on Stage 16 and saw it all go falling away! You can’t win without taking it back in Stage 17……..in that condition, how ya’ gonna do that???

    Yes, the lab are dolts and the French have it out for us and many bikers do dope and Blah, Blah, Blah. And I still WANT to bel;ieve it was clean and superhuman. I have (reserved) respect for Floyd and his former coaches, but it doesn’t wash. In OUR minds, innocent until proven guilty…….

    We’ll never know……… And now a word from our sponsors………..

    Please help the fight against cancer……legally! I and Clydesteve are both begging our butts off and training for the LiveStrong Challenges and Ride for the Roses…….me in Austin, him in Portland. Help us honor Susan Nelson, Fatty, and other friends and family by contributing to the LAF and the Challenge today: http://austin07.livestrong.org/mlevin

    You can even make your donation specifically in honor of someone and have it show in the scrolling window on the website!!


    As Floyd says, that’s my story, and I’m stickin’ to it!!!!

  9. Comment by Canadian roadie | 09.21.2007 | 8:36 am

    I don’t know a lot about the testing for doping but it seems that there was certainly a lot of “guilty” parties this year. First of all, in this day in age, with the rules the way they are, why would anyone be stupid enough to dope? Second of all, I can’t help but think what if these guys are innocent? To be stripped of your title, your sponsorship and your career just so some officials can prove a point and not admit that their lab screwed up is reprehensible. But who am I to say. I don’t know all the details, but from what I heard, Landis sounds like he’s always been against doping in racing.

  10. Comment by Argentius | 09.21.2007 | 8:37 am

    Yup, Hamilton finished 12th at the USpro road race, and 6th in the ITT.

    I have a problem trying to sort out guilt from innocence from afar — when a person stands accused but protests their innocence, especially if it is someone that I perceive as a “likeable” or “good person,” then my natural inclination is to believe them.

    Something about the story of being wrongly accused seems heroic in some corner of my head. It clouds my judgement. I put myself in their places too much: “I wouldn’t cheat, since it would feel worse than a pyrrhic victory, so why would they? And, if guilty they be, why bankrupt their life savings in a low-probability, futile attempt at defending themselves?”

    But, that logic is flawed in SO many places…

  11. Comment by Lurkette | 09.21.2007 | 8:38 am

    Same thoughts here. Because the system is such a mess, the verdict has no credibility. To my mind, whatever happened in ‘06 still has not been proven one way or another, Was Floyd really innocent, or really guilty? We’ll never know. I tend to think him innocent, though, and the whole episode is unbelievably depressing.

  12. Pingback by RocBike.com » Links Of The Day: 21 September 2007 | 09.21.2007 | 8:46 am

    [...] Judging Floyd [...]

  13. Comment by TG | 09.21.2007 | 8:46 am

    Floyd is innocent! He should have been found not guilty. The system needs fixed and soon or it will put itself out of business because there will be NO more professional cycling! Free Floyd!

  14. Comment by Sophia | 09.21.2007 | 8:47 am

    Tyler Hamilton actually shattered my idealistic and optimistic belief in the innocence of pro-cyclists. I steadfastly defended Hamilton until that second round of allegations made me feel a little betrayed. Maybe if Landis had come before Hamilton, I would have been more likely to believe he was innocent, but at this point I have become jaded and think the majority are cheating. And I still like and admire both Hamilton and Landis very much, but I’m most angry at them for not stepping up and taking responsibility for their actions.

  15. Comment by Ian | 09.21.2007 | 8:57 am

    A few random thoughts about doping:
    Tyler was caught with evidence of having been transfused with someone elses blood at a time when banking blood and reinjecting it (blood doping) was common practice in the pro peleton. Two weeks later his teammate was caught for the same thing. Surely Tyler was innocent but his evil euro teammate was not. Perhaps the team just screwed up and switched the bags?

    The reason the USADA is so successful in doping cases. You get highly trained professional labs to test samples. They find things that are not supposed to be there. The rules say that is not allowed so the athlete is guilty; end of story. The rest is a huge effort by athletes to find a technicality or legal loophole to squeeze through. The pundits (that’s all of us) then get on an “inncent until proven guilty jag.” They are already proven guilty! Now they are trying to wiggle out of it. Do we really believe that there is a huge conspiracy to spike specific athletes samples, maybe they just got caught. If we believe the athletes, the labs are wrong about 90% of the time.

    Floyd’s ride last year was amazing and inspirational at the time. As a Canadian it was not as amazing as Ben Johnson beating Carl Lewis in the 100m at the Olympics in 1986. Too bad he cheated too. I guess after that I have learned that our heros are not all pure but we have to accept that and move forward. Turns out Carl Lewis probably was cheating too but that is another story.

    Because there is a lot of money in Cycling as an industry there is a lot more incentive to cheat. In sports like XC skiing, the performance benefits are the same but there is less money around to pay for sophisticated doping programs and the national team structure puts the commercial sponsors further from the athletes. Everyone knows that if you are going to dope, you have to do it well or WADA will catch you. If you can’t afford the best drugs and systems to beat testing you will be caught so in many other sports they don’t try as much to dope anymore. Other sports like the NFL have both a lot of money and very crude testing and I am sure if held to the same standard as cycling you would only be able to field a 6 team league.
    That is enough of a rant for now, I feel better, thank you


  16. Comment by Willie Nelson | 09.21.2007 | 8:57 am

    I believe Floyd. And I hate that the unqualified ignorant talking heads at ESPN and all over the media pass judgment based on the NFL and MLB scandals.
    Even if Floyd cheated on stage 17 it was great entertainment and that’s what sports are to us as spectators. As a kid (in the late 80’s) I was naive enough to think sports meant something and that watching records being broken held some sort of value. But as time wore on and almost ever sports hero of mine has somehow fallen, I reluctantly embrace the idea now that sports are entertainment and trying to derive anything more is heartbreaking. I would love to see sports as another honest endeavor that holds some real value, but the money will always prevent that.

  17. Comment by bikemike | 09.21.2007 | 9:12 am

    It’s a shame the truth means very little in the courts anymore. yeah for the judicial system. yeah for floyd. yeah for everybody.

  18. Comment by Bitter (Lissee) | 09.21.2007 | 9:12 am

    I think he was innocent.

    I mean come-on, he won the stage. OF COURSE they were going to test him, isn’t that what they do for all stage winners (I didn’t watch this year, please don’t beat me with a multi-tool because I can’t remember)?

    Only an idiot would dope in that circumstance. And frankly, I don’t think Floyd is an idiot. So either he was framed, set-up, or was slipped something by some malicious fan or member of another team.

    It just doesn’t make sense. And yeah Fatty, you should have given Floyd a pink-jersey.

  19. Comment by Cyndy | 09.21.2007 | 9:13 am

    I saw Tyler in the USA Cycling Pro champion race in N.C. few weeks back.

    I have doubts about Floyd, I sure would like for him to be innocent, but it isn’t looking good.

  20. Comment by solidjack | 09.21.2007 | 9:18 am

    I really really want him to be innocent. I think the “reasonable doubt” was established but that is not what is needed with a hearing such as the arbitration. He needed to prove that he was innocent and was assumed to be guilty. I think this one is pretty much over as he said he will not appeal.

    Kind of sad really.

  21. Comment by RubyBlue | 09.21.2007 | 9:19 am

    I like to try and believe the best in people too. But lets face it, doping is a huge issue in cycling. And even though directors and races like to act all mystified, I doubt they are all innocent or niave about it as they try to claim.

    That being said. Do I think the evidence provided by Landis’ team created some doubt as to the accuracy of the test? Yes, but I think to be more solid they would have had to have the lab run tests on known doped samples and have them come back as non-negative (or whatever the word for ok is). But then again, no one ever complains that they weren’t caught.

    Do I think Landis doped? You betcha I do. But I don’t think he tested positive for the right substance. He was on something…but not what he tested positive for.

    Just my thoughts.

  22. Comment by Kris | 09.21.2007 | 9:20 am

    Only Landis knows if he cheated or not. Hard for us, so far removed with only scraps of info, to make a just judgment. So then it’s just opinion – what you believe.

    Is it reasonable that after the stage 16 disaster Landis figured he didn’t have much to loose and doped up? Yes.

    Is it reasonable that his sample was sabotaged? Stranger things have happened.

    I tried to wade through the Landis defense info and found it weak, but it did cast a little doubt on the testing. What raised the mosts suspicion in my mind was the second round of testing – why was it done by the same lab? This never made sense to me. Landis is accusing the lab, so why not address those accusations by using a different lab? Lot’s of possibilities, but no way to know the truth.

    I still admire Landis’ performance in stage 17. Drugged or not it still took strategic execution, mental toughness and guts.

  23. Comment by Kris | 09.21.2007 | 9:36 am

    Willie Nelson: Amen!

    The only thing pure in sports is what you get from it personally. That’s why I find my own athletic endeavors (amateurish as they are) much more fulfilling than those I spectate. Probably the same for most of you.

    Case in point: my first Triathlon is Saturday. Can’t resist trying something new.

  24. Comment by Brewinman | 09.21.2007 | 9:37 am

    I have to side with Floyd here. I still believe that doping is rampant in pro cycling. However, I have a real problem believing anything that comes out of the lab that is responsible for testing at the TdF. Furthermore, if Floyd was going to take a supplement/blood additive that would make his Stage 17 results possible, it wouldn’t have been Testosterone, it just doesn’t work that way. Just my couple of pennies…

  25. Comment by Terry | 09.21.2007 | 9:40 am

    Is Floyd innocent? I don’t know. What I do know is:
    Doping in sport doesn’t bother me.
    Sport is entertainment. Floyd (and Barry Bonds for that matter) entertained me.
    Floyd is likable, the French are not.
    I won’t ever wear a pro team jersey again (unless it is free, not french and cool looking).

  26. Comment by Boz | 09.21.2007 | 10:07 am

    Why isn’t Floyd’s traing staff under the same scrutiny. If this crime really happened, he got the testosterone from someone. I don’t think you can just buzz down to the local Walmart and buy some the night before a race without a prescription. Look at how Mike Vick’s pals rolled over with a little pressure.
    Come on, Al M, put this all in perspective for us with your usual rapier sharp logic. I know you have the inside scoop, being a law-type guy.

  27. Comment by dug | 09.21.2007 | 10:44 am

    oj was as innocent as floyd. or vice versa. different infraction, same defense.

  28. Comment by eunicesara | 09.21.2007 | 10:47 am

    Catch-22. T’were not for sponsorships, corporate support, and other NGO funding, the playing field would not be available for those not endowed with private fortunes with which to exhibit their talents. However, when you’re playing on some one else’s dime, sometimes the sponsors expect to see a return on their investment, hence the temptation (need, suggestion, command)to enhance performance.

  29. Comment by Alberto | 09.21.2007 | 10:52 am

    Yup…wait…let me tune my violins. C’mon, Fatty, stop making me weep. I too believe in angels, Santa, Pro-Wrestling and, yes, “Rocky” was actually true, all versions included. How many more lawyers does this man need to hire to prove his guilt? But no, it’s the French, you know, envious bastards, ladi-da-da, Monsieur! Maybe he should be sponsored by the American Bar Association.

  30. Comment by Susan (another one) | 09.21.2007 | 10:56 am

    Both sides of the fence are fairly well articulated here, well with one or two exceptions. But I would like to point out that the US anti-doping is federally funded. It is one of those quasi-governmental agencies that can wreak so much havoc. If you don’t like what they are doing you can contact your congressman about their funding.

  31. Comment by BotchedExperiment | 09.21.2007 | 11:11 am

    Whether he was actually guilty or not, I’m surprised the charges stuck due to the inpetitude of the French lab. It appears that even the arbitrators who upheld his suspension felt that the lab only disclosed data that implicated abnormal results and ignored their own data that indicated normal results. Further, it’s clear that the lab could not establish a continuous chain of custody for the samples. Clearly, the bar for finding a rider guilty of doping is a MUCH lower bar than criminal or even civil proceedings here in the U.S.

    I actually agree with Floyd that the ruling is a bad thing for cyclists in that by upholding terrible scientific and laboratory procedures, the arbitrators are dooming some future (or past) truely innocent rider.

  32. Comment by GenghisKhan | 09.21.2007 | 11:19 am

    Yeah, you need the prescription, two-day notice (so they can drain some poor Rhesus monkey–talks like Mickey Mouse for days afterwards…) and a note from your trainer (Must include the phrase, “Pretty please with sugar.), I think, at the local Wal*Mart…

    Target, on the other hand…

  33. Comment by GenghisKhan | 09.21.2007 | 11:23 am

    Oops, my bad, Target requires all the hoop jumping, Wal*Mart, on the other hand…

  34. Comment by RoadChica | 09.21.2007 | 11:40 am

    I don’t think Floyd is innocent, but I don’t think he should have been found guilty. I completely agree with Botched’s note above. The tone of the anti-doping rhetoric is so shrill. We have a modern day Spanish Inquisition.

    Have you all been following the Valverde situation with him riding in the Worlds? All this time since Puerto, and he gets to ride. Then the UCI changes its mind and decides he can’t because they don’t trust him. Which is it? How can you change the rules on a whim? It’s as if everyone is a suspected doper until they prove their innocence, which is, of course, impossible because no one trusts the logic of “I’ve never tested positive.”

    Besides all of that, in reading the articles about the Floyd decision, it appears that the B test is why he’s been found guilty. Well, did the lab monkey so much with the A test to find a “non-negative” so that they could have the B test. If the A test had not come back “non-negative,” there would be no B test.

    There has to be some accountability for the process otherwise it is just a gigantic witch hunt that finds everyone guilty in the end.

  35. Comment by sorelegs | 09.21.2007 | 12:21 pm

    Floyd says he is innocent, I believe him.
    Tyler says he is innocent, I believe him.
    Basso says he was only trying to dope, I believe him.
    Rumsfeld says he knows where the WMDs are, I believe him.
    Gonzales says he doesn’t remeber, I believe him.
    Bush says we dont torture, I believe him.
    OJ says he didnt do it, I beleive him.
    Clinton did have sex with that woman.

    What the heck is the truth worth anymore. L

  36. Comment by cyclingphun.blogspot.com | 09.21.2007 | 12:31 pm

    There is such a blurred line between right and wrong, truth and lies, who the heck could even say anymore.

  37. Comment by bob | 09.21.2007 | 12:45 pm

    Floyd’s defense was akin to saying ‘he a detective did not use gloves, so his fingerprints smudged mine on the door knob’ while the finger prints on the bloody knife are clearly floyd’s

    The arbitrators said that test #1 was full of procedural errors, but test #2 was good. So do we need a 3rd test?

    If floyd is innocent, why did he not set up a public lie detector test or DNA test, why did he allow his friend/advisor to drunk dial//threaten someone?

    I believe Floyd and Tyler believe they are innocent, because they did what everyone else did, and got caught. How long did Jeanson deny, only to come out and admit today.

    Those who get caught and say ‘yep I did it’ are smart. A likeable person does not equate 100% of the time to a nice person.

    The turna around in performance that floyd had between stage 16 and 17 is not likely to be doen without a midnight delivery.

  38. Comment by DOM | 09.21.2007 | 12:54 pm

    It’s all a sickening mess. I’m still amazed that anyone can be suprised that doping is happening, even rampant, in probably all sports. Look at the women in track and field. Tons of testing, in and out of competition, but how many of them have legs muscular enough to pass for a division I running back? Just hard work, tough for me to believe. With all of the testing, why would anyone cheat–to win. To win and because they think that they can (continue to) beat the tests.

    The lab is either incompetent or unethical, maybe both.

    As far as USADA being 35-0, yes, but remember, that’s on appeal. The US attorney’s office’s record isn’t that much worse on appeal. Yes, I think Floyd’s defense punched plenty of holes in the evidence. Yes, from what I saw of the defense, the verdict should have been overturned. Yes, I SUSPECT he (and all riders at that level) bend/break the rules. Would it be stupid to shoot up mid race–yes.

  39. Comment by GenghisKhan | 09.21.2007 | 12:55 pm

    Uh, sorry ’bout the ignorance, but could whatever he had done resulted in such an amazing overnight performance boost?!

  40. Comment by susie b | 09.21.2007 | 12:58 pm

    Floyd is INNOCENT. Floyd’s side showed REPEATED errors by the lab. The specimen was even left unattended for various amounts of time. Wish I could say I was shocked those 2 gutless wonder ARBS ruled the way they did but hey, they want to keep working for USADA….

    Any coincidence this TRAVESTY was overseen by Travis-T Tygart? I think not… ;)


  41. Comment by Philly Jen | 09.21.2007 | 1:07 pm

    Landis has a habit of shooting from the hip, of being frank and plain-spoken, sometimes with disastrous results. Yet ironically, when it comes to the one indisputably heroic part of his own life story, he’s been undermined by his own understatement and stoicism.

    Whatever Floyd may or may not have been taking, we all know it wasn’t a morphine drip. Can we at least give him his due for riding at at world-class level on only a hip-and-a-half? For getting up and doing his job, day in and day out, even when he literally could barely stand up straight? For being determined and resourceful enough to render his limp — oh right, that old thing — nearly invisible?

    Whether or not you may think Stage 17 was brought to you by the letter “T,” carefully consider the premium Landis has always paid, and will forever continue to pay, strictly for the cardinal sin of being less than 100% mediagenic. Then go right ahead and put your own spin on the word “cheated.”

  42. Comment by Dino | 09.21.2007 | 1:33 pm

    I would have ruled in favor of Floyd, and thats mainly from my own understanding of statictics and chemistry

    I worked as a chemist for 6 years and there is no test that is immune from human errors.

    I am also studying statistics right now and wonder why the labs are not more tansparent with their data and their practices. Not only are their results not transparent to the public but they are not transparent to the defense either. And that detracts from the labs credibility in a major way. They say they are doing their job right, but they are not willing to show it.

    In a some respects I hope pro cycling takes a big fall b/c all of these problems. I believe these problems won’t be solved untill the sport as a whole hits rock bottom. It won’t be untill the sport faces extinction that real and genuine solutions will present themselves.

  43. Comment by axel | 09.21.2007 | 1:38 pm

    the precedent of Tyler – he had a similar defense, but he turned out to be doped by fuentes (according to my reading of the info in the press) – makes it really hard to believe Floyd.
    The fact that all successful grand tour riders of two years ago were caught doping makes it really hard to believe Floyd.
    The fact that a lab can’t even get a T/E ratio test right, yet its data can be used to end someones career makes the anti doping fighters look baaaad. I’d have let Floyd off on a that technicality. A doping lab needs to be run like a crime lab, not a soup kitchen. 4 years out of the pro-tour for the french lab, after 2 years they can start analyzing pro-continental riders!

  44. Comment by KeepYerBag | 09.21.2007 | 1:50 pm

    Three baseball umpires got to be good friends. One day after a big game, they got together and started talking shop.

    The youngest, least experienced of the three said, “You know, I just call ‘em as I see ‘em.”

    The second, more experienced umpire puffed his chest a little bit and proudly remarked, “Well I call them the way they ARE.”

    Without skipping a beat, the most seasoned of the three declared, “They ARE the way I call them.”

    At this point, it doesn’t much matter. The damage has been done.

  45. Comment by Born 4 Lycra | 09.21.2007 | 1:52 pm

    First of all I should point out I am as thick as two house bricks. All the legal jargon and scientific rhetoric go way over my head.

    I do question (and marvel at) Floyd’s performance on the day – it was so good it was bound to be investigated just as by winning it was bound to be investigated. So if he doped I would also have to question the intelligence of him or any of his advisor’s. But his defence can only really be standing in court swearing to tell the truth and trying to convince anyone who will listen of his innocence. Simplistically we can only decide whether he is telling the truth by forming an opinion of what he says.
    The prosecution however should be supported by one set of infallable irrefutable facts obtained via a scientific process of analysis performed by trained experts in an accredited lab following a laid down set of preocedures exactly. These results should be 100% above question. The fact that they have been proved to be otherwise should be enough to destroy the prosecution case and throw the whole thing out. If you can’t stand by the results 100% imho you can’t stand by them at all. Seems to me there was only one professional involved in this whole mess and he was the main witness for the defence.

    Is Floyd innocent – possibly not. Is he guilty – not on the evidence presented.

  46. Comment by Jeremy | 09.21.2007 | 3:33 pm

    Hello everyone,

    Just thought I would reintroduce myself.


  47. Comment by Big Mike In Oz | 09.21.2007 | 3:55 pm

    The labs have a lot to answer for and should be put on trial with just as much enthusiasm as the athletes.

    I think Floyd is “not” guilty as opposed to clean as a whistle. Have a look at the guy. That tour stage was a miracle. I believe in miracles, just not that kind. And have another look at the guy, would you trust a squinty little face like that.

    As for Tyler Hamilton… he’s working on his comeback. Spending a bit of time on the road, a bit of time in the wind tunnel and around 18 hours a day in the lab plugged in to all sorts of needles and hoses.

    I don’t know who’ll get caught next but the conversation will go something like this…
    “I’m clean, I’m clean.”
    “Of course you are, that’s detergent in your veins.”

  48. Comment by cyclingphun.blogspot.com | 09.21.2007 | 5:01 pm

    I think he was just holding it for a friend. Then he accidentally put it in his mouth on account he had a turkey sandwich in one pocket, a can of Diet Coke® in another, and a banana in the third… all of which he did not want to taint.

  49. Comment by Debamundo | 09.21.2007 | 5:55 pm

    I like Floyd. And I soooo wish I still believed he is innocent. I did for a long time. But I just don’t think I can believe it anymore. I still think he got screwed. And I would probably root for him if he ever managed to get hired by a team when his suspension is over and come back to pro racing. But that is unlikely. His career is over. In a way I hope he doesn’t even try. Watching Tyler’s unsuccessful attempts has just been sad.

  50. Comment by BotchedExperiment | 09.21.2007 | 7:28 pm

    Jeremy and bob, I know the science. The 2nd test is based on detecting the presence of different isotopes of elements (such as carbon and nitrogen) within the molecules (in this case testosterone) of a sample. What you get out is a bunch of squiggly lines with some peaks. You run the sample a bunch of times and because the actual readings will be different every time for the same sample, you compare an average reading of the sample with different standards that you’ve used to calibrate the machine and that you’ve run with the experimental samples. It’s not a black and white result.

    What the LNNDDNDDNDND (?) did and what the arbiters accepted, was that the lab ran that sample many more times than was normal and then only counted the most abnormal readings in their average. Let me repeat, this was for the 2nd set of tests that the arbiters held up.

    bob, I think your analogy is flawed for a couple reasons. First, it is incomplete. For it to be complete you’d have to say, “The first prints were smeared by the detective, and the detective put the knife into custody and sent to the lab for finger print analysis. Then no one knows what happened to the knife, but eventually technician X said that Floyd’s prints were on the knife.”

    Second, your analogy suggests that the most damning evidence is the 2nd set of tests and that the same fool-proof assay is carried out on the knife as the door knob. That’s not the case here. Although the second set of tests is not rocket science, it’s more subjective than the first set of tests that the lab screwed up. Your anology would have to be modified such that there were no prints on the knife, but an expert witness was called in to testify about a shoe print, or hair strands, etc.

    My point is not really about whether Floyd is a doping bastard or not, but more about how a bad lab that is doing bad science can be used to ban guys for two years. So it’s not about a certain guy getting busted or cheating wanker getting banned.

  51. Comment by born4felt | 09.21.2007 | 8:00 pm

    I don’t know if Floyd is innocent, but I don’t believe that he should have been convicted. I’ve been a lawyer too long to think that everyone who is convicted is guilty. In general, people don’t want to believe that innocent people can be prosecuted, but it does happens–prosecutors get their minds set on something, and come to believe that the evidence is much stronger than it really is. Ask the Duke Lacrosse boys.

    Moreover, there is a tendency among non-scientists to defer to scientific testimony even when doing so is not justified. Science is always contingent and contested. Imagine if you had a trial to determine the best way to lose weight. Some qualified scientists would say that it was a low-carb diet, and some would say that it was a low-fat diet. Both would have tons of empirical evidence to prove their point. But just because someone in lab coat says something is true doesn’t make it so.

    I find it interesting that the two people on this board who are working scientists–Botched and Dino–don’t think that Floyd is guilty, while others who aren’t working scientists nevertheless are convinced that he’s guilty because “science” says so.

    To get to the specific evidence, there is no direct test for synthetic testosterone–rather, the test looks for carbon isotope ratios in metabolites of the testosterone. But there is a natural variance in these ratios, so the testers compare metabolites that would not be affected by the synthetic testosterone in order to esablish a baseline ratio and then compare it with the testosterone-based metabolites. If this method sounds like it might not be 100% accurate to you, then you’re probably right. It seems to me that if you want to use the test to prove people guilty–and thereby ruin their lives, as Floyd’s was ruined–you’d damned sure better prove that it’s accurate. One can imagine a study that did this–it would be a statistically significant double-blind test, one with a population of users and non-users and that used the same criteria as the French lab–but if such a study exists I haven’t heard of it. And even then you’d worry that it wouldn’t predict what could happen to people riding the TDF, so you’d need another study showing that riding the TDF didn’t change carbon isotope ratios in riders.

    All of which is to say that the scientific evidence strikes me as pretty shaky–not necessarily wrong, but not clear enough to justify destroying someone.

    sorry for the long post but I’ve got strong feelings on this.


    P.S. Tyler is guilty as hell–the evidence against him is much stronger in every regard.

  52. Comment by bob | 09.21.2007 | 9:12 pm

    Botched, i agree, the analogy is weak, and the science is not exact and questionable, but i fall back to why base the defense on procedural errors if you are truly innocent, why not use a lie detector/dna tests, etc… to prove it?

    I bet some people still believe Jan is clean, when he said no way to DNA testing, Bettini said it was an infringement on his rights, bull, better get some fluids in ya to clean out that sludge fellas.

    There is no way that stage 16/17 turnaround was not enhanced, maybe i am too cynical, but dropped, dehydrated and then killing it the next day, sorry, then he blamed it on beer and whiskey, what?

    Maybe he is and was clean, except justice has spoken, for better or worse, i think for better, cause it will help, along with all the other crap, clean up the sport and maybe bring more sponsors back to domestic MTB racing.

  53. Comment by MAJ Mike | 09.22.2007 | 5:01 am

    I don’t think Floyd was innocent of the accusations. I *know* he is. Procedural errors aside (although those should have been enough to kill the case before it began…and would have for a non-American rider), the difference between the epi/testosterone levels between the two samples was large enough that any of the other WADA labs on the planet would have thrown out the whole test *right in the lab!* The one lab that plays pick and choose on this issue is the one in france, and it has lost several lawsuits with other athletes (a swimmer, track runner, and some others) over exactly that issue. The reason is because the wide gap indicates a problem with the samples, the test equipment, or something other than the athlete’s specimen. This is standard procedure in every other lab, why don’t they do it here? Oh, because the TdF is for the french, right?

    Secondly, if the ridiculously high levels found in the test are to be believed, why did he not show high levels the day before or any of the days after? It is highly likely that he would have had he actually been taking something. My guess is that the tester who handled both his samples previously (a violation of the test rules) wasn’t around to sprinkle a little something extra in the samples.

  54. Comment by MAJ Mike | 09.22.2007 | 5:11 am

    One other thing regarding Floyd’s remarkable turnaround from one stage to another. While I am no professional athlete, I have experienced exactly this phenomenon on the job. As a young infantry officer, I’d be in the field running around for days. It isn’t the TdF, but it can be pretty rough. I had any number of days when I was beat down but turned it around the next day. One in particular was BAD. I was running around on a live fire range all day in the Texas sun, and by the end of the day I sucked down two large IV bags as a result. I got a few hours of sleep overnight and came back good as new the next day. As a result, I don’t think it is impossible or even unusual that a top athlete could pull off similar feat.

  55. Comment by cyclingphun.blogspot.com | 09.22.2007 | 5:29 am

    Classic case of they needed a fall guy and he was there to bring down. BOTCHED: I really must say, I love how you’ve broken it down. I have to believe ( as I said in my blog yesterday) While it’s is ‘fun’ for me to play on the accidentally doped theory, I don’t see him being stupid enough to get even near the junk. One thing I did think about, and I dont think anyone has mentioned but I have not seen thus far, is I remember a conversation in this years Tour about spectators handing off water and such, and the risk of tainting it. I would also like to believe that Landis would not be dumb enough to take water from a spectator, but… Finally, I do think that even if (God forbid) he did dope, the testing was botched in such a way that you can’t uphold it… But thats why they have big lawyers and the average Joe gets screwed.

  56. Comment by pcomeau | 09.22.2007 | 5:40 am

    Yup… Regardless of Landis’ guilt or innocence, the LNDD lab needs to be dropped from the list of viable labs for testing.

    1) The procedural errors are large enough, that if it was a person or some other company they would loose business big time, cause nobody would trust the.

    2) As pointed it this lab has lost in lawsuits about it’s procedural errors.

    3) It could be me bu LNDD seems to consistantly leek the results of tests to L’Equipe and other reporters before the organizers and associations can deal with the situation. If the lab can’t control thier people and keep things under wraps, how are they to be trusted?

    There are major ethical issues with the LNDD lab, but nobody in ASO, UCI, or WADA wants to talk about that issue. They’re all too busy shooting off thier mouths about how great they are instead of really improving the system.

  57. Comment by BotchedExperiment | 09.22.2007 | 5:42 am

    bob, if a DNA test would help in this case, I’d totally agree with you, but this is a urine sample, which I’ve never heard of someone getting DNA from (although it might be possible) and more importantly, whether the sample is his or not was not in question.

    As for a lie detector test, it is way more subjective than any assay that the lab would have run. Personally, I wouldn’t put myself in a position to be damaged by a lie detector test.

    I think Floyd did about all a person could do to try to clear themselves (using a retrospective strategy). As a scientist, I agree with his defense that the tests performed on his samples by the French lab are only good enough to convict the French lab ov incompetency.

    If I were a pro cyclist, here’s what I’d do (and by the way, someone should totally start a company offering these services). I’d I’d start documenting my own blood and hormone values with an independent firm. Such a firm would be a clinic into which the individual would check in and stay for about 14 days. Most importantly, patients wouldn’t have direct contact with anyone from outside the clinic. Their baggage would be checked, etc. Necessary personal medications would be dispensed by the clinic. Blood and urine samples would be taken every couple days. By the end of the 14 days, you’d have “clean” samples, which I’d have the clinic store. In the event of a “positive” drug test, I’d insist that my clean sample be run with and compared to the positive sample.

    Gotta go eat breakfast. . .pancakes, mmmmmmm

  58. Comment by Doug G | 09.22.2007 | 6:35 am

    One thing about the amazing ride on Stage 17 (and it was great!) that everyone forgets about is the lack of effort from everyone else on this stage. Nobody gave chase, they let Floyd get away becuase they didn’t think he could do any damage. If they had of given chase then Floyd wouldn’t of won and all of this discussion wouldn’t be happening!

  59. Comment by Ricky-Davy | 09.22.2007 | 7:42 am

    I like Botched’s easy to understand explanation. It seems way too confusing for a common guy like myself to truly understand all the procedures and what went awry. Do I think Floyd doped? Probably, but no more than any other rider did, and I’m fine with it.

    My biggest questions about the whole affair is this:

    1. Why didn’t high levels of testosterone show in any other test, how long would it take to work it’s way out of your system?

    2. Would testosterone help him recover from stage 16 to put in the most awesome performance ever seen in stage 17 overnight? Wouldn’t you think he’d have been in need of EPO or some other endurance enhancing drug?

    I admit I haven’t read everything written on the subject, but these are my biggest questions that I would appreciate somebodies expert(?) opinion on.

    Floyd is still a cool guy in my book.

  60. Comment by Jeremy | 09.22.2007 | 7:52 am

    No one here REALLY knows Tyler, I mean Vino, I mean …oh Floyd. How can any of us/you truly know what people will do to win. Just for clarification… Doping will not bring down the sport of cycling, the UCI will do that on its own.

  61. Comment by Miles Archer | 09.22.2007 | 8:01 am

    If everyone is doing it, few are getting caught, and there’s no chance of winning unless you do it – is it cheating?

    If everyone drives 75 on a road with 65mph speed limit, with one person a day getting caught – is it breaking the law? Would you do it?

    My two cents is that they should have a class of sporting event that allows any kind of chemical or genetic tools to improve performance. Kind of like autoracing being used to improve road cars, i’d like to see sport being used to develop stuff that would improve performance for the rest of us. Making it legal would allow this. Keeping it clandestine removes the possibility.

  62. Comment by Anonymous | 09.22.2007 | 11:12 am

    MAJ, I think that the french public have no expectation of a french win in the tour and are happy if they get a stage on Bastille Day. Any animosity they may have is towards their cycling development system, in the same way that we Brits have no real expectation of a home nation winning the rigby world cup. We may moan a bit about the performance of the southern hemisphere teams reletive to ours, but anyone who follows the sport is happy to see a superior performance of skill and tactics over a luke warm home win. The only people who really resented US domination of the tour in recent years are L’Equipe and a few drunk Germans.

    Ricky-Davy, look up pot belge. The presence of Testosterone, or some test results that are within limits, but are unusual in other ways, may indicate a mix of performance enhancing drugs and masking agents. A while back athletes in many sports were testing positive for “recreational” drugs like cocaine and canabis.

    Botched, I tend to agre with you, governing bodies seem to be accepting of bad scientific practices that would be unacceptable in other legal procedings. However, Landis had the opportunity to get his B samples tested else where and chose not to.

  63. Comment by Anonymous | 09.22.2007 | 11:21 am

    Something that seems to get overlooked in all these doping stories, regardless of any controversy about legitimasy of tests, is where these drugs come from. They dont come via legitimate sources, you can’t buy many of the performance enhancing stuff over the counter. They come into cycling teams form the same people who supply steroids in 2’s and 3’s at your local gym, from the same people who provide crack to be sold on street corners, who supply cocaine and heroin. Drug dealers sell these drugs. If Landis is guilty, or Ulrich or Mayo, then not only are they guilty of cheating, they are guily of supporting a drug distribution system that is trying to supply my kids.

  64. Comment by Geologychick | 09.22.2007 | 1:45 pm

    The lab screwed up! PERIOD… end of story… Landis’ sample does not count… or if it is even Landis’ sample. It’s hard to tell with all of the White-Out on it…

  65. Comment by Fan of Susan | 09.22.2007 | 2:54 pm

    When I first learned about Floyd’s positive result last summer I was convinced it was a mistake, and the testing hasn’t persuaded me otherwise (shout out to Botched for his explanation of the procedure). Having said that, everything that has come out this past year about Ullrich, Basso, Vino, etc. now makes me wonder how difficult it is for a top GC contender to compete without doping, as it seems that a number of “the cool kids are doing it”, likely Floyd included. Even if you are a good guy (which I think Floyd is), I’m beginning to think doping may be part of the job. I hope I’m wrong, and, fortunately, my cynicism hasn’t diminished my enjoyment in this year’s tour, last year’s Stage 17 or the Vuelta. Although I’d prefer a clean peloton, the notion that doping may be prevalent does mean the playing field is relatively level allowing ability and skill to still rise to the top (or at least that’s what I tell myself).

  66. Comment by JeremyJ | 09.22.2007 | 4:43 pm

    There have been several descriptions above of Floyd’s Stage 17 win that include words like “miracle” and “unbelievable”. I would encourage those people to find a video recording of the stage and watch it again. Floyd’s effort was only matched by the absolute HORRIBLE decisions made by his competitors. The stage was the perfect storm for Floyd:

    - all hills with no real flats for recovery/group advantage

    - last of 3 straight killer mountain stages (tired riders)

    - his time deficit allowed the opposing teams to be over-confident in their ability to pull him back

    Floyd started that stage as one of the best mountain riders in the 2006 peloton and proved why he earned that distinction. Thus, connecting his Stage 17 win with doping doesn’t work for me. The rest of the peloton were the “dopes” that day.

  67. Comment by Murphy | 09.22.2007 | 6:43 pm

    One additional thought on “the miracle stage”. I believe it was stated that Floyd took over 60 water bottles from the team support car. It’s hard to believe that none of them were “sticky”. Sticky bottles plus bad decisions by the Director Sportifs = a miraculous win.

    The leaks from the lab is bad. The fact that the name of the rider on a supposedly blind test is leaked is rather suspicious.

  68. Comment by BettyBetty | 09.22.2007 | 8:20 pm

    My vote is with Floyd. You impressed the shit out of me – dope or no dope. It takes a huge amount of atheleticism, strategy and skill to do what he did on that stage – no drug will do that for you. It’s not like he popped a superman pill. With that said and knowing that the peleton is far from innocent I’d say the playing field was pretty level and the UCI, UCF or whatever they call themselves FCP (french cycling pricks) should all just get over it and admit the testing was flawed.

  69. Comment by BettyBetty | 09.22.2007 | 8:21 pm

    My vote is with Floyd. You impressed the shit out of me – dope or no dope. It takes a huge amount of atheleticism, strategy and skill to do what he did on that stage – no drug will do that for you. It’s not like he popped a superman pill. With that said and knowing that the peleton is far from innocent I’d say the playing field was pretty level and the UCI, UCF or whatever they call themselves FCP (french cycling pricks) should all just get over it and admit the testing was flawed.

  70. Comment by JeremyJ | 09.23.2007 | 6:02 am

    Murphy – put yourself in Floyd’s position at the beginning of Stage 17. Yesterday, you overheated and bonked due to poor nutrition management the previous day. Yesterday, you were also left alone for a long time with little access to team support (remember, Phonak was no Postal Team with Lance’s merry band of water carriers).

    So, you start your breakaway on a hot day and there is your team car within arms reach for the entire stage. If you’re Floyd, you’re dumping water over your head and taking every opportunity to grab a drink.

    So when they say 60 water bottles were used on one stage – I bet that is how many were in the car at the start of the stage. If I were Floyd – I would have used every one.

    Was one of them tainted with drugs? Sounds a little too “black helicopter” to me. Plus, nothing about testosterone indicates that real-time benefits are achieved. As Floyd once stated in an interview – “What it comes down to is that I’m being accused of stupidity more than doping.”

  71. Comment by tigermouth | 09.23.2007 | 6:36 am

    I think to catch dopers, they need to use more police style investigations. If Tyler or Landis doped then there are accomplices and witnesses.
    As much as I’d like to believe Tyler didn’t cheat, the tie to Puerto with bags of blood labeled with his name makes me more skeptical than his failing the tests.
    I still think/hope Landis didn’t cheat because what he got accused of apparently isn’t likely to cause a great one day recovery. Seems like they should use other investigative means (interviews, etc.) to support accusations of doping.

  72. Comment by aussie kev | 09.23.2007 | 12:55 pm

    Guilty – i still feel cheated that i stayed up to 3 am watching that cheating Ba@%^$d ride on stage 17

  73. Comment by Boz | 09.24.2007 | 5:27 am

    Looks to me like Floyd should stick with MTB races. Much freindlier atmosphere and less drug testing hassles. Especially in the US non-sactioned stuff. He can still make lots of endorsment cash and probably have more fun.

  74. Comment by sans auto | 09.24.2007 | 5:57 am

    I think they all dope, or at least anyone who is in contention of winning the big races. That said, I think Landis should not have been found guilty. His possitive test, is a weird one. Who tests possitive for testosterone one day out of a 3 week tour? That’s not how the drug is generally used. And really his testosterone wasn’t high, his epitestosterone was low. What does that mean? Nobody really knows. I’ve looked in every biochem book I have and there is very little known about epitestosterone. The data stinks and Floyd should not have been found guilty, but that doesn’t mean i think he was clean.

  75. Comment by Mark | 09.24.2007 | 9:38 am

    Who tests possitive for testosterone one day out of a 3 week tour?

    Someone who’s had an overnight re-infusion of their own blood which happened to have been extracted when there was artificial testosterone floating about in his system perhaps? Seems the most likely cause to me.

    Look at Vinokourov’s stage wins at this year’s Tour to see its rejuvenative power in full effect.

  76. Comment by KT | 09.24.2007 | 2:08 pm

    Dr Botched, you have articulated my thoughts precisely. I’m not a scientist, but I have a college degree in enviro science, and took enough classes with labs to know about the scientific process.

    The lab the TdF organizers use is fishy, unreliable, and unethical. Pcomeau has the right of it, as well.

    Do I think Floyd’s guilty? No. I think it’s bunk. I think he got screwed. He’s not stupid, he knew how much was on the line for that stage, and the winners of each stage always get tested. Why throw it away like that?

    Floyd’s trial did a lot to expose the procedural errors the lab has committed, and, for all we know, continues to commit. A thorough, and independent, audit of the lab and their procedures needs to happen before the cycling public will trust them. A thorough house-cleaning at WADA wouldn’t hurt, either.

    As for the USADA record of 35-0… does that show how good they are at catching cheaters, or does it show how good they are at convicting athletes?

    I’ll still ride; at least the athletes I consider heroes don’t dope, unless it’s too much beer.

  77. Comment by Accident Prone | 09.24.2007 | 3:20 pm

    Botched rules.

    I got a kick out of Ian’s comment: “The reason the USADA is so successful in doping cases. You get highly trained professional labs to test samples.”

    Uh, might want to rethink the ‘highly trained professional labs’ part. I work in clinical research in the US. If we ran our lab like that one, we’d get shut down in a heartbeat.

  78. Comment by nickc | 09.25.2007 | 8:12 am

    OK, from a UK perspective, which perhaps is not so much wrapped up in the whole ” The French want to get every American cyclist” thing, here’s my twopenneth:

    Floyd Landis had his lawyer present when they retested the sample.

    “The analysis of Landis’ B sample took place at France’s national laboratory at Chatenay-Malabry in the presence of the American’s Spanish lawyer, Jose Maria Buxeda, and experts from the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) and the UCI.” BBC website

    So, despite what was said in court, I think we can accept the sample was correctly tested.

    Whilst I don’t think the French lab did themselves any favours by leaking the A sample results to a couple of journalists. Floyd Landis and his management didn’t exactly cover themselves in glory during the blackmailing of LeMond. I think the PR spin that FL’s management team, and Lawyers put out was indicative of a group desperately hoping that by trying to suggest the results were somehow doubtful, that eventually some of it would stick.

    Do I know for sure he doped, no I don’t. Do I think the evidence is strong enough to show “something” was up? Yep, absolutely. FL was caught out, he expected his result to be clean, because he was masking, these athletes, as others have suggested, are not stupid, they know what the tests are and they know how to get around them, I think FL was convinced, by others perhaps against his better judgment, who knows? That it would “BE OK” When it went south, Plan “B”; Flat denial, was implemented as soon as they realised.

    Ultimately it comes down to a decision: do you want road races to be decided on the day, or in the labs, and courts. I know which one I’d prefer, and the sooner cycling gets rid of the dopers, the better.

    By the way, have any of you actually read L’equipe? It’s not actually Anti American at all, it’s pretty Pro French, but, Hey, it’s a French paper, what do you expect?

  79. Comment by Tom | 09.27.2007 | 6:20 pm

    The whole pro Landis stance is admirable but very very ill informed. If any and I do mean any of the people who support Landis bothered to go beyond scanning the headlines and delve a little deeper into the whole saga then there can be no question of innocence. I don’t care either way and its pretty irrelevant now anyhow. It just bugs me that people are willing to make decisions without knowing the facts.

    Some people here think that it was shoddy lab work and the results were messed up somehow. Some of his other samples were retrospectively tested at his own request with his people present and they came back with the same results indicating the presence of non natural testosterone. His defence was beyond weak, basically boiled down to – the lab is incompetent so even if the stuff is there I’m not guilty!?!

  80. Comment by Frenchman | 09.28.2007 | 8:26 am

    I don’t understand why some of you seem to think that the lab is skewed towards french riders and messed up Landis results on purpose. There was no frenchman in a position to win so what is the point? Disqualifying Landis did not give the tour to a frenchman! Greg lemond was a very popular cyclist in France, Ulrich like Amstrong were not, mainly because Lemond was perceived as clean when the 2 others were not, it has nothing to do with nationality! All these doping scandals are not in the interests of the organisers (very bad press and bad businees as sponsors are starting to go away) so why would they try to fake one, it simply does not stand up.

  81. Pingback by Biking Circle - Today’s Top Blog Posts on Motorcycle - Powered by SocialRank | 10.1.2007 | 1:16 am

    [...] Judging Floyd [...]

  82. Pingback by Biking Circle - Today’s Top Blog Posts on Motorcycle - Powered by SocialRank | 10.1.2007 | 1:16 am

    [...] Judging Floyd [...]

  83. Pingback by Biking Circle - Today’s Top Blog Posts on Motorcycle - Powered by SocialRank | 10.1.2007 | 1:16 am

    [...] Judging Floyd [...]

  84. Trackback by Latest Book Reviews | 10.30.2007 | 7:29 am

    Latest Book Reviews

    I couldn’t understand some parts of this article, but it sounds interesting

  85. Trackback by Donald | 11.28.2007 | 8:51 pm


    \”…A sudden bump can sometimes be enough to damage and result in loss of data…\”

  86. Trackback by Secret side effects of zoloft. | 03.16.2008 | 12:40 am

    Side effects of stopping zoloft.

    Alcohol and zoloft. Zoloft sexual side effects. Zoloft and lexapro. Zoloft and breastfeeding.

  87. Trackback by Clave 2612 clonazepam rivotril. | 07.13.2008 | 5:30 pm


    Rivotril mexico. Buy rivotril with same day delivery. Buy rivotril. Clonasepan rivotril.

  88. Trackback by Vestra reboxetine. | 07.14.2008 | 2:24 pm

    Vestra reboxetine.

    Vestra reboxetine. Reboxetine.

  89. Trackback by Buy rohypnol. | 07.16.2008 | 3:46 pm

    Buy rohypnol.

    Buy rohypnol. Where to buy rohypnol.

  90. Comment by Rix | 04.25.2009 | 6:55 am

    Nice to read a page that isn’t basically a bunch of advertisements. I think Floyd did and Tyler got caught a second time. Is Tyler on the front page? I don’t think so.

  91. Comment by Dave | 04.29.2009 | 10:59 am

    Tyler cheated. Using a banned steroid as an anti-depressant? Please.

    No one will ever know about Floyd, because the lab results were completely unreliable. Plus the French overlords of the Tour hate Americans. And why would Floyd, knowing he’d be tested if he won, then win the stage?


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.