garage sale GT said:Thank you for informing me that we are discussing one man's opinion. I am glad you are here.
He did make a fairly credible claim based on a quantum jump in the performance of competitors. You could say it was his job to know. And yes, he could be lying about his own use.
Do you propose to defeat my thesis that doping is a necessity by pointing out that LeMond might have been using it too?
What thesis? You've only got supposition. All you can have is supposition. The statistics, though, say it's patently stupid to say that everyone had to be doing it to stay in the race. Completely stupid.
Credible claim? Yeah, how so? Is LeMond a physiology/human performance expert? Where did he get his degree? Where did he do his research, and it what publications did he publish his "theses?"
Where exactly is the "proof" that you needed PEDs to compete? Please, no conjecture. Proof is fact, so please, stick to the facts. Doh! I forgot: you don't have facts.
I find all these "theses" to be statements more about how hens just need rumor, innuendo, and ankle biting to get through the day than they are about anything to do with doping issues.
LeMond is an angry, resentful, bitter turd that couldn't even gather the intellectual faculties to understand his obligations in a business agreement. So given the clear limits on what LeMond "knows" or "understands," is there any reason to even think what he says is true? Moreover, given the standard by which you hens judge guilt--i.e., you only require that someone allege something; that someone you dislike wins; that someone deny they dope(d) or that some performance goes beyond the feeble limits of your intellectual universe--LeMond must be guilty of doping because he denies ever doping.
Thesis my ass. When did a conjecture [censored] ever come up with a thesis, eh? Christ, it was people like you folks conducting witch trials a few hundred years ago.
