Better question, how is it that an American taxpayer-funded organization can participate in an adjudication system in which you get a two-year ban because “there is no reason to exonerate” you? At what point is such an organization shut down and defunded?
In his decision last week, U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks declined to intervene in USADA’s case against Armstrong because to do so would “turn federal judges into referees for a game in which they have no place, and about which they know little.” But in the next breath Sparks expressed an opinion on certain matters he does know about. “The deficiency of USADA’s charging document is of serious constitutional concern....”
August 25, 2012
"How does an agency that is supposed to regulate drug testing strip a guy of seven titles without a single positive drug test?"
"How is it that an American agency can decide to invalidate somebody’s results achieved in Europe, in a sport it doesn’t control?"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
65 comments:
I'll say it again:
I don't like Lance Armstrong, but the fact our government didn't come to the aid of an Olympic athlete, and especially one of his stature, says something.
Unfortunately, what - exactly - I don't know.
Maybe they didn't like him either?
I think Lance called their bluff.
It's impossible to ignore the BS now.
Three cheers and a yellow jersey for Sally Jenkins.
In auto racing they set aside a class for the French to win.
I tune out the Olympics because of their blatant speech censorship.
I say defund!
If Armstrong is stripped of his TDF wins, every one of those wins will go to someone also implicated in illegal doping. How bizarre is that?
On "performance enhancing drugs" in general, I think there are too many drugs that are difficult to test for, or to distinguish from substances more or less normally occurring in our daily lives, and some tests today can show up such minuscule amounts that anyone could show up "positive" just from breathing the air on a trans-Atlantic flight.
Since all of these sports now are professional (even "The Flying Squirrel" is looking at acquiring an agency to handle the millions coming her way for endorsements of beakfast cerals, etc.), I think that we should quit testing, but set a minimum age limit of 21 for entering competitive events.
If Armstrong is stripped of his TDF wins, every one of those wins will go to someone also implicated in illegal doping. How bizarre is that?
Runs wheel-to-wheel with the fact the only 'evidence' Lance doped is testimony from those also implicated in illegal doping.
As I commented over on another thread, the USADA functions as investigator, prosecuting attorney, and judge. The appeals board has almost never overturned a USADA ruling.
I think the cure is worse than the disease. I think the drugs are less of a problem than the USADA.
I worry that other sports may follow.
I don't doubt Armstrong cheated...cycling joins football, weigh lifting, and baseball as sports where winning through better doping and having a team of experts behind you that can finesse the testing - is critical to success.
Better to just admit it like the NFL does..."Heck yeah, we tell those black bucks to eat down steroids like they were Skittles - starting in high school!"
Crack, isn't it a US institution that has lowered the boom on Armstrong?
We're from the US Anti-Doping Agency.
We don't need no stinkin' drug tests.
I believe Armstrong doped; I believe every top cyclist doped. I also believe in due process and find it abhorrent that taxpayers are funding an organization antithetical to American ideals.
I'm disappointed by all the arguments about Armstrong giving up without a fight. It's hard to know who is worse, the USADA or the media that ignores two attempted lawsuits by Armstrong.
As some have noted, its not quite over. The USADA now has to fight the UCI. From my understanding, the USADA will eventually prevail, as the UCI is bound by agreements to accept the USADA findings. But really that discussion should be the story; as the Professor seems to be suggesting.
I also think this is more devastating to the Tour de France than Armstrong. In the last 15 years, there are 2 winners that have yet to be stripped of their titles on doping charges. When 6 years after a race, you still don't know who the real winner is; what's the point in watching?
Some pygmy in some cubicle was jealous as hell of the superhuman Lance Armstrong. Damn shame.
The French are behind this. Never trush the French -- just ask Joan of Arc.
@C4
"Black buck's" wasn't really needed in that statement.
As far as Armstrong goes...if you strip him of his TDF medals, you need to award him some Noble Prizes in chemistry 'cause they never proved it.
USADA is only slighty worse than the NCAA. The USADA uses tax payer money to rip off athlete's. The NCAA just does it directly.
We're still waiting for the Duke punishment for Corey Magetti, and UNC's Afro-American Studies scandal is not even on their radar.
For those unfamiliar with the UNC thingie, UNC's Afro-American studies classes were made up of 40% of the football and basketball players. The entire athletic ratio to regular students is 1%. This has been documented for at least 10 years. In addition, the professors assigned to teach these classes have sworn that grades were changed in the classes they did teach, and some swear they never taught the classes at all. But wonder of wonders, every atlete who took these classes not only passed but retained eligibility for passing said classes. their last 2 basketball championship teams consisted of the majority of the athletes Majoring in classes that didn't exist.
The UNC football team has been punished(lightly), but nothing has been done to the basketball team, and it won't be. UNC brings in major money for the NCAA.
I think there should be an investigation of the USADA.
@C4
"Black buck's" wasn't really needed in that statement.
As far as Armstrong goes...if you strip him of his TDF medals, you need to award him some Noble Prizes in chemistry 'cause they never proved it.
USADA is only slighty worse than the NCAA. The USADA uses tax payer money to rip off athlete's. The NCAA just does it directly.
We're still waiting for the Duke punishment for Corey Magetti, and UNC's Afro-American Studies scandal is not even on their radar.
For those unfamiliar with the UNC thingie, UNC's Afro-American studies classes were made up of 40% of the football and basketball players. The entire athletic ratio to regular students is 1%. This has been documented for at least 10 years. In addition, the professors assigned to teach these classes have sworn that grades were changed in the classes they did teach, and some swear they never taught the classes at all. But wonder of wonders, every atlete who took these classes not only passed but retained eligibility for passing said classes. their last 2 basketball championship teams consisted of the majority of the athletes Majoring in classes that didn't exist.
The UNC football team has been punished(lightly), but nothing has been done to the basketball team, and it won't be. UNC brings in major money for the NCAA.
Floyd Landis, who doped to win and was caught at the time of the race. Who proclaimed his innocence, took in one million dollars from supporters, and then admitted the doping charges were true, wants to sell a book. Why would anyone what to buy a book written by a fraud who lies? Well, maybe if he includes some passages about how Lance Armstrong was a doper too (even though years of drug testing at the actual Tour De France Events turned up nothing) perhaps the fraud Floyd Landis can sell some books?
Lance has been fighting this crap for years. He has spent boatloads of money defending himself.
It's unusual to see this sort of high-handed arbitrariness in an organization not run by Kathleen Sebelius.
harrogate,
Crack, isn't it a US institution that has lowered the boom on Armstrong?
Yeah, but there's more going on here, anyone should be able to see that. But, as I said, I have no clue what:
The French hate him.
His teammates hate him.
The government certainly doesn't like him, and I don't either.
Yet nothing's been proved against him and he won every race he ever entered - after losing a ball (or something) to cancer.
I'd like to see somebody to get to the bottom of it, because I always want the truth exposed to light - and it seems like the guy could be catching a raw deal - so, I guess, I wish he'd kept fighting.
But, even more important, when forces of this magnitude are against an individual - I don't care what their personalities are like - the American thing to do is demand justice:
If Lance Armstrong is a liar, then so be it - he'll deserve every bit of shame he's brought upon himself.
But, if this is a witch hunt against an athlete for poking his finger in the eye of everyone around him - including a country that resents us for being capable of doing just that - then fuck them for not being up to the challenge.
Jesus Christ, I miss investigative reporting,...
The medals were awarded by the USADA, and paid for by my tax dollars?
Then why do they run the race in France?
Peanut M&M's are good for uphills.
If anabolic steroids are the "drug" he was supposed to using, they are contraindicated in testicular cancer, which he was fighting at the same time. This would seem very odd and almost suicidal to me.
If on the other hand he was using "blood doping" either transfusions or drugs that stimulate blood forming by the bone marrow, that it widely used and may be safe in his situation. Not being very interested in the sport, I haven't read the allegations.
I would seriously doubt any allegations of anabolic steroids because of the testicular cancer which has responded to treatment quire well. In fact, I could see some justification for stimulating blood formation to counteract the effects of chemotherapy.
I would think he smells lawsuit down the road.
The public is as complicit in this as the athletes are. We want winners!! at any cost, or "Heroes" that set records.
We only pop our heads up and complain about sports being "ruined" when the scandal is too obvious to ignore.
Back when the McGwire-Sosa race was on, everyone I knew in sports, expecially those doing weights, said it was obvious both players were juiced to the max on anabolic steroids.
Some media even ran "before" pictures of pre-Gargantuan McGwire and Sammy.
The public didn't care...they ate up the Heroes HR Record chase. The stage managed McGwire boy hero-worshipping his Dad, the Hall of Fame Bat...the millions made by the two jocks and the Maris Family paid to boost it as PR.
Lance kicked the crap out of all the pathetic, second rate, wannabes at their own marque race. And he dominated the hardest part of the race - the mountains. The result has been a constant stream of harassment since his first TDF win. The European Cycling Union has offered clemency, reduced punishments, outright immunity, etc to anyone caught doping or using steroids in return for implicting Armstrong. Considering all the BS he has had to endure I would cut Armstrong some slack if he seems to be difficult to deal with.
Screw the whole sorry buch of them. With or without the official titles, Armstrong is still the best rider the TDF ever saw.
Cedarford = McGwire was using Andro at the time of the home run race with Sosa. Andro was legal at the time. It was banned later. AFAIK, Sosa has never admitted using anything
Fuck 'em, Lance. And double fuck the French.
The odds of you passing 500 drug tests, which involved hair, urine, and blood samples, if you're doping aren't just small. They're infinitesimal.
Guilt by insinuation. Bullshit.
that taxpayers are funding an organization antithetical to American ideals.
Does USADA take Fed money? I wasn't able to tell. Grants from somewhere, maybe?
Seems like a complete waste of money. Why should the Govt care if bikers are doping?
I believe Lance Armstrong cheated, even though he passed 500 drug tests and there is not a single shred of evidence proving he cheated. I also believe in Tinkerbell, the Tooth Fairy, catastrophic global warming and the power of infinitely large and powerful government to improve all aspects of human life
I've read through the following pdf which describes UCI's relationship with the drug testing agencies. Within this document Section VII deals with Results Management, which is how the USADA claims jurisdiction to strip Armstrong of his medals.
I see nothing in '204. Adverse Analytical Findings', '229. Results management where no Adverse Analytical Finding is Involved', or '232. Conclusion of results management process' where the UCI has yielded final say over medals to any outside agency, including WADA. So unless some other legal document exists outside of this, it appears that UCI has final say over Armstrong's medals. The USADA and WADA are (merely) required to inform UCI of their findings. Full stop, it appears.
UCI Cycling Regulations Part 14
I'm sure they'll have fun arguing over it.
I wish Lance had decided for a public arbitration simply so you Lance fanboys could hear the truth rather than just the Armstrong camp's talking points.
As for jurisdiction, perhaps Armstrong's case was hampered because in Lance's previous litigation with SCA Promotions, part of Armstrong's defense included an affidavit by USADA head Travis Tygart asserting that USADA did have authority to test professional athletes in the United States. So Armstrong's argument was basically that when it helps him, he's subject to the USADA, when it doesn't he's not
As for the rest of Lance's myths. No, he hasn't passed 500 drug tests. There's no proof to that claim. That claim is a lie. He has failed drug tests.
The witnesses against him are not all "convicted dopers" - they include Betsy Andreu, the wife of a teammate who has testified that she heard Armstrong admit using PEDs to his cancer doctors. Another witness is Emma O'Reilly, who worked with the US Postal Service team. These people have nothing to gain and have since endured harassment and smears from the Armstrong camp.
The analytical evidence against him is powerful. Contrary to popular belief, a doping positive isn't like a pregnancy positive, at least with today's doping methods.
In any case, you need to educate yourself before you plant yourself in the camp of the biggest fraud in sports.
I stated in a previous comments column that I am no fanboy, of Armstrong, of the olympics or or sports in general.
In my previous comment about jurisdiction, I said 'unless some other legal document exists...", so perhaps the precedence of the SCA Promotions suit applies. Or, maybe it doesn't - unless there is some tie-in between SCA Promotions and the UCI.
Armstrong's doping (or not) is of less interest than the witch-hunt being carried out by the USADA.
...of less interest to me...
Someone (Kris?) above said that Armstrong had failed drug tests. When and where were these test and what were the drugs?
Frankly, I don't care if Armstrong was "doping". Why? Because it was an even playing field. I strongly doubt any of the competitive riders in the Tour in the past 50 years have been "clean". Cyclists have been using PEDs since there were cyclists. Tom Simpson died on Mt. Ventoux in the 1967 Tour, from exhaustion exacerbated by amphetamine use. I'm pretty sure that Eddy Merckx used PEDs.
To be honest, I was a little suspicious from the get go about Armstrong's "I'm a cancer patient so I wouldn't endanger my life with PEDs" shtick. It's possible that he figured out a way to pass all those tests.
Armstrong's body changed from before cancer. He was always talented, but he wasn't considered a tour challenger. He'd won the World Championship, but that's a one day race that usually doesn't involve a high category climb. After cancer, Armstrong weighed less and the one thing that improves dramatically when you lose weight is the ability to climb. So if he was doping after cancer, it was probably EPO or something else to do with oxygenating the blood, not HGH or testosterone, or anabolics which all will bulk you up.
I feel the same way about steroids in baseball. The pitchers were cheating too so it was an even playing field. Hitting a baseball is hard to do, even when you're using chemicals to change your body and performance. Coming in last in the Tour de France is something the vast majority of serious cyclists cannot do. So Lance may have been using EPO and blood transfusions, but he still had to climb those mountains and put a hurt on his opponents, most of whom were likely cheating just like he was.
But what do I know, Smokey Yunick was one of my favorite car guys and he made a career out of cheating.
But, even more important, when forces of this magnitude are against an individual - I don't care what their personalities are like - the American thing to do is demand justice:
So true. It's like the EPA violating their own rules to declare second hand smoke a carcinogen, or what is it about C02? It's a toxin?
When any organization gets too powerful, crap prevails.
Kris' comment seemed remarkably full of assertions without much backing that others (like me) could check. In a country where one is assumed innocent and all that, I'll wait for the proof of guilt.
Also seeing as how Kris' seems unable to comment without ad homs (like Armstrong: "the biggest fraud in sports" or those who have mostly expressed doubt in the whole process are termed "Lance fanboys"), I'll go with the latter until proven (not asserted) otherwise.
The odds of you passing 500 drug tests, which involved hair, urine, and blood samples, if you're doping aren't just small. They're infinitesimal.
There is an assumption in there that isn't quite valid. The assumption is that the drugs CAN be tested for. There are designer drugs out there that pass the test. And the assumption is the drugs aren't metabolized.
The story I've heard from those who race bikes, even as amateurs, is that they all dope.
Armstrong doped better than others? Are we cheering science, or athleticism? What happens when it's possible to alter genes in a way that enhances performance? It can't be too far off.
But, even more important, when forces of this magnitude are against an individual - I don't care what their personalities are like - the American thing to do is demand justice:
So true. It's like the EPA violating their own rules to declare second hand smoke a carcinogen, or what is it about C02? It's a toxin?
When any organization gets too powerful, crap prevails.
One might want to look over the us-anti-doping agency's website:
http://www.usantidoping.org/
It's creepy in its self-importance and heroic defense of all that is good, right - and note that the group is Protecting the Rights of Athletes. In the context of the Armstrong case, it's more than a little Orwellian. It comes across as some TSA-type group of thuggish busybodies and brown-nosers.
The whole thing is ridiculous, of course. Having said that, I can't get it up to care much about this. He had a history of betrayal in his personal life that doesn't particularly inspire revenge or support.
Armstrong is a a two faced, politically ambitious, phoney. That's my read on him and has been for many years.
Lance failed a 1999 test for cortisone. Emma O'Reilly has stated that she backdated a TUE (therapeutic use) slip for him, which the UCI allowed him to use after the failed test. She is likely one of the witnesses against him if the case went to arbitration.
Lance's 1999 Tour de France samples tested positive for EPO when retested after an EPO test was developed. You can read David Walsh's excellent "From Lance to Landis" for more information on how l'Equipe investigated this.
One of the allegations against Lance is that he also tested positive for EPO in the Tour of Switzerland, but the test was covered up after a fat donation to the UCI - that was one of the issues some of his former teammates would have testified about.
There's also the post-comeback incident where testers came for a sample and for some reason allowed Lance to wait and shower, when testing rules state that he has to remain in sight of the testers.
Today, an official from the French anti-doping agency stated that Armstrong and his team were given warnings before testing happened (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-armstrong-warned-before-all-doping-controls).
This is the real issue with jurisdiction. It's not that USADA is on a "witch hunt" it's that the UCI is complicit in doping and its cover up. The UCI are the inmates guarding the asylum.
As for the 500 tests being quoted here. He has not been tested 500 times. Here's a nice graph to help you out: http://www.cyclismas.com/2012/07/the-legend-of-the-500/
For kicks, you can look up USADA/WADA test history here: http://www.usada.org/athlete-test-history
Lance was tested 29 times (note - there are additional tests that he would have undergone, but the absolute ceiling is above 200 - around 92 is more likely). He's not even the most tested Armstrong. By comparison, Michael Phelps has been tested 134 times in the same period.
Finally, a doper in a field of dopers isn't an "even playing ground". To put it very simply, EPO helps boost your hemocrit (red blood cell count). Right now, anything above a 50 is sign of doping. A person with a natural hemocrit of 42 who dopes is getting an unnatural advantage over a person with a natural hemocrit of 45, for example.
Furthermore, Armstrong and his team were able to afford the best doping doctors, like Dr. Ferrari. A Dr. Ferrari can develop a more effective, safer and harder-to-detect doping program than a Dr. Nick.
Doping doesn't even the playing field, it gives the athletes who respond better to the drugs and who can afford the best drug doctors an unnatural advantage.
Here's a comprehensive list of the doping allegations against Armstrong over the years: http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/index-of-lance-armstrong-doping-allegations-over-the-years
I'm not crazy about him either, but I see this as just another example of bureaucratic oppression.
At last they didn't surround his place with armed agents like they did to Gibson, but they hit him where it hurt too.
Kris @3:10
+1
Couldn't have said it better. Not a hater - just a skeptical realist.
I would be very surprised to find that Armstrong never used Epopoetin. Almost all cancer patients use epopoetin because all chemo drugs kill off red blood cells. And I'm talking from a hematocrit test of 41% to less than 10%, which means the amount of oxygen your blood can send around your body just dropped by 75% and blood transfusions are a regular part of your life. EPO brings it back to 20-25, or roughly half of normal.
While Armstrong was on chemo for testicular cancer, he continued to train for long distance bike riding. (I am in awe of his dedication; most cancer patients are grateful to get out of bed and shop for their own groceries.) So we have Armstrong training with at best 50% of a normal person's oxygen saturation; and if he refused epo due to bans in his sport, doing it with 25-30% of normal.
He survives, praise be, and bone marrow naturally brings back the red blood cell count and suddenly, he is cycling with 2-4 times the oxygen that his muscles have become used to. Yes, that's a competitive advantage as a pro cyclist, but I wouldn't recommend chemo as a performance enhancer...
That's a long physiologic explanation why I don't believe he doped and I do believe the other dopers are lying.
It is inevitable that people will reject a justice system and culture where presumption of guilt is the de facto standard. People who support the regressive standard should file their lawsuits before equity is restored.
One way or another, it will be restored. As will respect for individual dignity.
Well Kris and Mel both have expressed cogent, well thought out arguments.
Here is mine...who the f%#$k cares. It was along time ago, and there's a lot worse going on in the world.
The baseball doping was winked at because baseball was losing costumers. Ratings were down because of the strikes. Then HO-LE-Y COW!, as the man used to say, we got us a homerun derby goin' on! Ratings returned better than ever.
Assume just for arguments sake the USBike Riders Assoc.(or whatever they have) wanted to raise their visibility in the US. And suddenly, along comes Lance and his wondernut.
Paranoia? Sure. Truth? Maybe.
I can't believe that the agency has been harassing Armstrong this long. He was extensively tested, other agencies have stopped their investigations, he has passed every test given, scheduled and random. How can an individual afford years and years of this kind of investigation. I think they should be able to be sued for harassment.
I can't believe that this agency can harass Armstrong this way. How can an individual person afford to fight this kind of organized harassment. Like Congress investigating whether retired baseball players used drugs. Don't they have more important things to look after? Like the fiscal cliff coming up.
I think Armstrong should be able to sue the agency for harassment.
"I wish Lance had decided for a public arbitration simply so you Lance fanboys could hear the truth rather than just the Armstrong camp's talking points."
Seriously?
It doesn't take a fan boy to hear the word "arbitration" and realize that no one is talking about hearing the truth.
That's the problem, Kris.
It's not that people are fans of Armstrong. I have some vague notion of who he is and readily believe that he's a complete ass. Very driven people who can't understand why everyone else can't do what they do are often complete asses.
I don't doubt he pissed off everyone he ever met.
But I wouldn't put myself at the mercy of arbitration unless two things were True. The question was a minor one, and I absolutely trusted the competence and veracity of the judge. Because no one has to PROVE anything. It's not a trial. It's a kangaroo court.
The word shares a root with *arbitrary*.
Close cousin to capricious.
Plus the internal to-the-argument evidence of shenanigans is obvious. Clearly the testing given athletes is flawed. That's a problem with the testing agency. So an organization *self-evidently* incapable of managing it's own business is making Armstrong responsible for their failure to function.
To quote a bimbo of our recent acquaintance; It Doesn't Matter. It doesn't matter if Armstrong doped or did drugs or anything. It doesn't matter if he's guilty and it doesn't matter if he's innocent.
He passed the tests; rode the races; won the awards.
This organization which is self-evidently incompetent wants a do-over. They are now going to punish everyone they can, punish Armstrong, in order to prove they're in charge.
They'd be better off figuring out some competencies in order to ensure that the NEXT race is legitimate.
As someone pointed out... What is the point of a race at all? Why watch the race? Why care? Why even GO to the race? Why compete when it's so screwed up and the people who screw it up aren't going to get around to finalizing your win any time soon, or EVER?
John,
How can an individual afford years and years of this kind of investigation.
He can't. The USADA Inquisition basically told him: "We decided you're guilty, based on no evidence other than the accusations of proven proven and admitted dopers, and we're not going to let you try to prove your innocence. Confess! Admit your guilt, or we will hound you to the grave."
To paraphrase Gunny Hartman, Armstrong has been royally screwed without the courtesy of a....
Kris, to the contrary this is very much a witch hunt. No physical evidence exists that is relevant to the USADA, WADA or UCI with respect to Armstrong's wins at the time, under the rules under which everyone competed. Your statement that the UCI is complicit is an opinion without evidence or merit.
The USADA has no physical evidence. Their 'case' is based on some statements from athletes who have a vested interest in seeing the guy who beat them taken down.
This has been a witch hunt for the purposes of the USADA to justify its existence and for a certain lawyer to try to make a name for himself.
I think it's creepy that they kept his blood draws for years and years to re-test ad infinitum.
Did he consent to that?
I am a multi-cancer patient and the Cleveland Clinic wants to test my blood in its research (so far, no genetic markers that would explain why I have had multiple cancers).
EVERY TIME I do a blood draw for them, I have to complete 10 pages of paperwork. They send me consent forms annually to sign and return that allows them to continue testing the samples they already have.
If LA didn't consent to this, the agency should not have kept his samples beyond the one test at race time.
Perhaps this offends us on some deep double jeopardy level.
I wish LA would fight. I sure hope the agency doesn't sieze all his winnings and endorsements from 1998 on.
His giving up the fight makes me wonder if he has a cancer recurrence or mets going on. That would sure explain giving up the fight. WHen your life is on the line, and you're facing treatment (or choosing not to), the last thing you want in your life is a lawsuit.
My dad was in a lawsuit that made it all the way to SCOTUS. He got out of appearing in court because Mom was dying of cancer at the time. So I know whereof I speak.
Massey Combines Corp. v. Varity
It's not creepy to keep those doping control tests. It's common. At the Olympics this year the IOC made a big deal of stating that they'd keep the tests for 10 years. It's frankly the only deterrent they have against drugs they can't yet be detected, like HGH.
The analytical evidence USADA has released is certainly "physical" evidence by any standard.
Again, it's not just ex-riders that would have testified against Armstrong in an arbitration hearing.
The lines about vendettas (the French, Betsy Andreu, Greg Lemond, USADA, Tygart) are getting old. At some point, the public should consider that maybe it's not them, it's him.
I used to get a headache after listening the Olympics blatant censorship speech. I am completely agreed with @Hagar. There are so many drugs which can not be tested easily. What about about them? The people from censor board should think about pass any drug test is so much difficult to find.
According to me,There has been something Wrong happened with Armstrong.Feel bad that Armstrong giving up without a fight.
____________________________________
ways to pass a drug test
Don’t let your upcoming drug test scare you. By consuming enough water, you will be able to make a difference in the results of your drug test. As the water continues to flush out your system, you will be less likely to have a positive drug test.
Beat Drug Test
Post a Comment