A very pro Landis article appeared in today’s New York Times by writer Sara Corbett. Just reading the first paragraph and you know where this piece is headed:
He wasn’t sure why they’d sent the muscle-building pudding.
His old sponsors still sometimes mailed him stuff — maybe it was an act of hope. All he knew was that he now had a case of protein-heavy, nutritionally pumped-up chocolate pudding sitting in his kitchen and, by god, he was hungry.
“muscle pudding” HAHAHAHAHAH!
Well he’s guilty. I wonder how Sara Corbett feels now. She definetely seemed to be leaning towards Landis’ innocence; guess she just backed the wrong horse this time.
I don’t think she’s even that important (famous) of a writer so nobody will call her out on it. So can also claim she technically didn’t say he was innocent. It’s pretty obvious, though, that it was a very pro Landis article. I mean who seriously believed he was innocent?