Tuesday Roundup

News
No Landis comment, but for some reason amusing. A commenter points us to a WRCB report that references the Tennesean. It seems a truck with a million dollars worth of pharmaceuticals was hijacked in Nashville. Within the now-missing cargo: Procrit, being Ortho-distributed, Amgen manufactured EPO. If a bunch of South Eastern masters riders start tearing up the place later this year, here's a clue.


Blogs
Racejunkie is all about saints and sinners today. In the "saints" column goes the peloton's "favorite" anti-doping czar David Millar and not Ivan Basso? In the definite sinner column goes poor Floyd Landis, literally poor Floyd, who is being demonized yet again by WADA. This time for the legal costs that the procedures that were within his rights cost them. Keep trying WADA, one of these days you might hit on something that actually makes some sense.

Rock Racing's Rashaan Bahati is having joint problems, and has talked with Landis, among others, about what to do. He needs to decide on surgery now, or later sometime. He's sucked it up, and won a recent race, but can't go on like that.

Velo Vortmax spins the report about WADA wanting Landis to pay their expenses, but takes it a bit further than the current information suggests. As far as we know, WADA isn't planning on suing Landis, but probably made the standerd request in the arbitration for costs. Good luck with that: It requires a finding that Landis' appeal was unfounded, for him to have the money, and for there to be some leverage on him to pay it. To anyone's knowledge, has Hamilton paid the costs awarded in his appeal?

Anyway, VVmax fantasizes about some of the people who might be brought to the stand should there be procedings in a real court -- and dreams that WADA might throw Landis into that briar patch:

John Fahey please sue Floyd Landis. There are so many unanswered questions about this case. Inquiring minds want to know. But don't be surprised if the real world does not work like the WADA world. WADA stands to lose a lot more than money.

Rant skewers the one-sided WADA idea of "loser (athlete) pays", and wants them to consider "WADA pays lost earnings" in the event an athlete wins. He wonders what the disincentive is now to halt prosecution of shaky cases.

That's a trick question, obviously: If you ask WADA, there has never been a shaky case, and never will be. The accredited-under-rules-that-mean-whatever-we-want-them-to labs never make mistakes (that matter, by our definitions) or use unsupported (by our standards) procedures.

And the athletes are all guilty anyway, so what is your problem, you doping apologist?

We're doing this for the kids, after all!

It has nothing to do with our Olympic cash-cow barn and the attached pork feeding trough.

Nothing.

At All.

Really!