Is anyone else getting tired

[I Watch Cycling In July]

Actually spent a bit of time today in my air-con office having done a 42-mile bash in 42 degrees of heat today. It gave me an opportunity to read through some of these posts and I am really appalled that some of you seem to have taken on the role of Judge, Jury and Executioner. My god what an arrogant bunch of know-it-alls. If someone even hints at any opposition to your firmly held beliefs then you fly back with insults. I've referred on this thread to people who hold a monopoly on truth (you know like Jehovah's Witnesses, Taliban leaders and so on) and in these threads I see that there are a hard=-core of you who are prepared to go as far as naming names of riders against whom there is not one shred of evidence. Yes, that word again, Evidence. And people who do not know the meaning of the word could go and see a lawyer or read a dictionary and try to understand what evidence actually is.
My challenge to you: Provide me with 100% cast iron evidence that, let's say Bradley Wiggins, has doped and I won't be able to argue against you. In other words, put up or shut up.

Not quite sure who the primary target of this post is, but since I commented on Bradley Wiggans' blood values in this thread, I'm going to go ahead and clarify.

What I said was "If we also take a look at the 09 tour blood data, one possible interpretation of the difference in values between Wigans and LA would be that one rider blood doped more than the other during the tour."

The words "one possible interpretation" means that there might be other interpretations, i.e. I don't have enough evidence to be sure either rider is doping.

The words "one rider blood doped more than the other during the tour", in the context of the sentence as a whole, only means that one rider MIGHT have doped less than the other. It's a relative scale, which includes the possibility of the rider taking no dope at all.

Wigans chose to publish his blood data. IMO that means he chose to have those data discussed.