LeMond I

[andy1234]

I don't get what it is you want here. You are not accusing LeMond of doping but want to see it discussed which it has been numerous times and the consensus each time is that the only thing linking LeMond with possible doping is the fact that Yvan Van Mol was a team doctor at ADR in 1989.

LeMond clearly had very little contact with Van Mol so that's it. What else is there to discuss. If something new transpires, then by all mean's it should be discussed. What aspect of LeMond possibly doping do you wish to be addressed??

There is a difference in discussing something where there is no new incriminating evidence after 20 years and discussing something that is happening right now.

Whatever way it is spun, SKY have revolutionized the sport in a way that has not been seen since the introduction of EPO so of course there will be suspicions. Especially when it is guy's who were previously mid-ranking road riders who are now tearing it up. The fact that SKY have proven to be hypocritical in their actions has only made their situation worse.

As I said before, you have alluded in the past to having connections with GAN and Chris Boardman so you are likely to know of any rumours about LeMond more than anyone else on here so why not put up or politely shut-up.

What I am asking, is for consistency, in response to scrutiny of riders.

A mention of LeMond, and doping, results in disgust from certain posters.
The same posters are happy to accuse other riders of doping, without the evidence that seems so necessary when dealing with LeMond.

If scrutiny based on hearsay and guesswork is OK for current riders, then surely it is OK for LeMond.

Personally I'm not happy with either, but no one should start complaining when it's their boy on the end of the noose.

As to LeMond's time at Gan, his career was all but over by that time, and nothing, including his performances, would suggest anything untoward was happening.

 

[86TDFWinner]

You seem to be under the impression that I have accused LeMond of something?
Please point out where I did that.

Sure, here you go(you've attempted to "kinda sorta" accuse him of taking something, just because of some report on the 88 PDM team.

If there is nothing to be found, nothing will be found.
So no one needs to get upset when questions are asked

FYI: Nothing has been "found", so why are you trying to accuse him of something, then trying to claim you're not doing it? Been 19 yrs since his retirement, "nothing has been found on him"...not when he rode, not now. Who's "getting mad" here, YOU? We're all trying to explain it to you, but it's YOU who can't understand it.

As for the blood doping point, I guess 88 was the only year blood doping could have been used? Rooks and Theunisse, on discovering they could ride away from a tour field in 88, decided not to bother again?
I'm not accusing LeMond of blood doping, just that, unlike previous assertions, blood doping would appear to have been making an impact on racing, even then.

And I pointed out to you earlier that Greg didn't even ride in '88 due to the hunting accident. He didn't ride in 87/88, so(and follow me here): if he didn't ride then, that would kind of, sort of, prove he didn't dope then, right? Which would shoot down your theory yet again, since you've brought up '88 and made an assumption that that's when he had to have doped.

Lastly, take everything you have stated about proof, and apply it to any current rider. If there is no proof, such as dates and times and who administered etc, I guess everyone should STFU?

Your problem here is, we're not talking about "current riders in this thread" are we? No, we're talking about LeMond(and correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems as though YOU were the one who brought this thread back to life somehow by insinuating/accusing/assuming LeMond might've/sort of/could've doped, despite about 40 people telling you he didn't, and yet you STILL keep going on about how you feel he should be scrutinized, and I'll ask you again to please explain to everyone):


As for "current riders who've doped": Feel free to start another thread with your list of guys you're asking us to provide proof of, and we'll do our best to accomodate you, ok? Bet most/all of the guy's you'll list have been proven/admitted dopers. Just my opinion.

Why should LeMond be "scrutinized" now? He's been retired for 19 yrs, no past history/talk/innuendo of doping. So, I'm failing to "get" the correlation on what LeMond has to do with CURRENT riders, who most of which, have been busted for doping.

Great, it's a deal.......

Let's hope so...doubt it will happen, but it's the thought that counts, right?

 

[86TDFWinner]

I don't get what it is you want here. You are not accusing LeMond of doping but want to see it discussed which it has been numerous times and the consensus each time is that the only thing linking LeMond with possible doping is the fact that Yvan Van Mol was a team doctor at ADR in 1989.
LeMond clearly had very little contact with Van Mol so that's it. What else is there to discuss. If something new transpires, then by all mean's it should be discussed. What aspect of LeMond possibly doping do you wish to be addressed??

There is a difference in discussing something where there is no new incriminating evidence after 20 years and discussing something that is happening right now.

Whatever way it is spun, SKY have revolutionized the sport in a way that has not been seen since the introduction of EPO so of course there will be suspicions. Especially when it is guy's who were previously mid-ranking road riders who are now tearing it up. The fact that SKY have proven to be hypocritical in their actions has only made their situation worse.

As I said before, you have alluded in the past to having connections with GAN and Chris Boardman so you are likely to know of any rumours about LeMond more than anyone else on here so why not put up or politely shut-up.

Bingo!!! Great post. He's "never accused him of doping", yet he keeps claiming LeMond should be "scrutinized like every other rider", despite the fact that LeMond WAS scrutinized, and has been retired for 19 years.


I think that's what he's trying to say...or not?(Again, scratching my head)

 

[andy1234]

Sure, here you go(you've attempted to "kinda sorta" accuse him of taking something, just because of some report on the 88 PDM team.







Your problem here is, we're not talking about "current riders in this thread" are we? No, we're talking about LeMond(and correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems as though YOU were the one who brought this thread back to life somehow by insinuating/accusing/assuming LeMond might've/sort of/could've doped, despite about 40 people telling you he didn't, and yet you STILL keep going on about how you feel he should be scrutinized, and I'll ask you again to please explain to everyone:

Why should LeMond be "scrutinized" now? He's been retired for 19 yrs, no past history/talk/innuendo of doping. So, I'm failing to "get" the correlation on what LeMond has to do with CURRENT riders, who most of which, have been busted for doping.




Let's hope so...doubt it will happen, but it's the thought that counts, right?

RR brought this thread back to life, with an article I subsequently quoted.
The said article includes a statement that LeMond was injected by a doctor known to be involved in doping riders. No accusations from me, just a statement of fact, and a question of how that would be seen in the context of any other rider.

The PDM blood doping info was provided to show how previously believed history can sometimes be revised. Only continued scrutiny provided this insight.
Before this information was highlighted, apparently blood doping was not practiced by tour riders in the 80s. We now know for sure that this isn't true.

It would appear that tour winners in the 80s, may have had to compete with riders who were on more than just speed and steroids.
Unless of course you still can't understand that riders who were winning stages in 88, may just have had the bright idea to repeat this preparation in subsequent tours.

These are facts. How they are interpreted is the only thing open to debate...

 

[pmcg76]

What I am asking, is for consistency, in response to scrutiny of riders.

A mention of LeMond, and doping, results in disgust from certain posters.
The same posters are happy to accuse other riders of doping, without the evidence that seems so necessary when dealing with LeMond.

If scrutiny based on hearsay and guesswork is OK for current riders, then surely it is OK for LeMond.

Personally I'm not happy with either, but no one should start complaining when it's their boy on the end of the noose.

As to LeMond's time at Gan, his career was all but over by that time, and nothing, including his performances, would suggest anything untoward was happening.

Well there are levels of suspicion for every rider. For example why are SKY getting crucified whilst Dan Martin who recently won Cataluyna, barely a mutter. It has nothing to do with bias but level of suspicion and that is what you refuse to recognise.

Dan Martin turned pro and from the beginning has shown he is a good climber winning Route du Sud in his first season. He has progressed steadily since then and has podiumed a number of times at Cataluyna before he won this year. There is no amazing jump's in career trajectory like Wiggins, Froome or Porte. There is no links to a dodgy doctor like SKY have with Leinders.

His team Garmin never set out a ZTP and then contradicted it multiple times, that is not to say there is not people at Garmin with dodgy past's but they do not contradict themselves a la SKY. Dan Martin does not dominate races like the SKY boys do. If Dan Martin suddenly morphs into a top TT rider, then you can be guaranteed the doping hammer will also fall on him.

As I said before, SKY are re-inventing the sport in a way only previoulsy seen with the introduction of EPO. If it were a Spanish team or some other nationality doing the same, the heat would equally be on them.

Frankly the levels of suspicion against LeMond are a lot lower than those stacked up against the likes of SKY right now. Perhaps SKY are revolutionizing the sport through legal means and I have never once accused SKY of doping but the way they are currently dominating stage races makes me weary.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

What I am asking, is for consistency, in response to scrutiny of riders.

A mention of LeMond, and doping, results in disgust from certain posters.
The same posters are happy to accuse other riders of doping, without the evidence that seems so necessary when dealing with LeMond.

If scrutiny based on hearsay and guesswork is OK for current riders, then surely it is OK for LeMond.

Personally I'm not happy with either, but no one should start complaining when it's their boy on the end of the noose.

As to LeMond's time at Gan, his career was all but over by that time, and nothing, including his performances, would suggest anything untoward was happening.

Since you like scrutiny and consistency so much can you name there "same posters" that you say are "happy to accuse other riders of doping, without the evidence that seems so necessary when dealing with LeMond".
No need to name them all just 9 or 10, with some examples of riders that they said doped using hearsay.

 

[Race Radio]

Before this information was highlighted, apparently blood doping was not practiced by tour riders in the 80s. We now know for sure that this isn't true.

No we don't.

The riders on PDM have said there was all sorts of doping on the team but they never saw blood doping. All we have are a doctors notes that are contradicted by those on the team who said they doped, or saw others dope, but never saw transfusions.

The notes were most likely for saline or plasma, not uncommon during the Tour in the 80's

 

[Bratam]

Have we discussed the technical aspect of Lemond's final TT of the 89 TDF ? I know it was a very fast time (ie, very high average speed) and we know he had technological assistance (compared to the rest of the field at the time), but is the consensus that Lemond's time was definitely achievable time by a clean rider? Hit me on the head if it has already been covered.

 

[andy1234]

No we don't.

The riders on PDM have said there was all sorts of doping on the team but they never saw blood doping. All we have are a doctors notes that are contradicted by those on the team who said they doped, or saw others dope, but never saw transfusions.

The notes were most likely for saline or plasma, not uncommon during the Tour in the 80's

There is a bit of history concerning riders admitting to certain doping activities, but not others.
There will always be riders who don't want others to believe they were winning, simply because they had a better programme.
Getting caught for doing what everyone else was doing is one thing, winning because of an "unfair" advantage is another.

The report stated that the journal contained entries for blood bags.
Do you have evidence that this has been misinterpreted or translated?
The entry specifically states blood bags. If it was saline, then I'm sure saline would have been the entry.

Infusions of plasma were commonplace during the 80s? That is news to me. Any evidence of its use?

Also, if the entry was actually for saline, it would have been common practice to administer saline to the whole team.
Why does the entry not cover all riders?

 

[sittingbison]

Have we discussed the technical aspect of Lemond's final TT of the 89 TDF ? I know it was a very fast time (ie, very high average speed) and we know he had technological assistance (compared to the rest of the field at the time), but is the consensus that Lemond's time was definitely achievable time by a clean rider? Hit me on the head if it has already been covered.

Its been well and truly covered. FYI Lemond weighed 67kg, speed was 54kmh but over only 25km with a substantial tail wind, and elevation of only 75m - the fastest individual time trial for a distance longer than 10 km ever ridden. Lemond is quoted as:

My last time trial in '89, I averaged about 420, 430 watts, which would match or be slightly down from what my real VO2 Max was

430W/67kg = 6.4W/kg over 26m 57s which sounds very achievable. Someone more mathematically inclined can determine if the 420-430W quoted is true from the speed, mass and time etc.

Compare that to more than twice the distances and over hilly courses in recent years

Estimates are the new fangled aero bars gave Lemond a 60s advantage, and the aero helmet another 16s advantage. Just goes to show grown men shouldn't have ponytails lol

 

[hiero2]

What I am asking, is for consistency, in response to scrutiny of riders.

A mention of LeMond, and doping, results in disgust from certain posters.
The same posters are happy to accuse other riders of doping, without the evidence that seems so necessary when dealing with LeMond.

If scrutiny based on hearsay and guesswork is OK for current riders, then surely it is OK for LeMond.
. . .

A mention of Lemond and doping results in disgust . . .

BECAUSE, it has already been covered, and covered, and covered, ad nauseum. There aren't questions that haven't been answered, many times, and those answers are readily found with a little effort and time. Because you seem to be unwilling to recognize that Lemond has already passed through the same scrutiny being applied to Sky etc today, and passed the scrutiny. Because the drugs applied when Lemond was riding were different, and that difference is important to a discussion of doping in cycling; which also seems to be an argument you have problems coming to grips with.

You seem rational - but you keep returning to the same scorched ground. The "hearsay and guesswork" for Lemond got covered years ago, and answered. Once it has been adequately covered and refuted or validated, then you no longer have to rely on hearsay and guesswork. So far as I've noticed, all that "hearsay and guesswork", regarding Lemond, that has been refuted, has been repeated (including refutations) in these forums, and much in this thread. It is there, and it is rude to ignore what can easily be found.

That is why you see the disgust. If you want to use "hearsay and guesswork" to implicate Lemond, unless something new comes to light, most of the posters here will realize that: (a) either you are not willing to do the basic research (forum manners no-no), or (b) you are not behaving in a rational manner, and ultimately you will get labeled "troll". Forgive me if that sounds harsh, I'm just trying to represent the situation rationally and logically.

 

[D-Queued]

Thanks.

Dave.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

A mention of Lemond and doping results in disgust . . .

BECAUSE, it has already been covered, and covered, and covered, ad nauseum. There aren't questions that haven't been answered, many times, and those answers are readily found with a little effort and time. Because you seem to be unwilling to recognize that Lemond has already passed through the same scrutiny being applied to Sky etc today, and passed the scrutiny. Because the drugs applied when Lemond was riding were different, and that difference is important to a discussion of doping in cycling; which also seems to be an argument you have problems coming to grips with.

You seem rational - but you keep returning to the same scorched ground. The "hearsay and guesswork" for Lemond got covered years ago, and answered. Once it has been adequately covered and refuted or validated, then you no longer have to rely on hearsay and guesswork. So far as I've noticed, all that "hearsay and guesswork", regarding Lemond, that has been refuted, has been repeated (including refutations) in these forums, and much in this thread. It is there, and it is rude to ignore what can easily be found.

That is why you see the disgust. If you want to use "hearsay and guesswork" to implicate Lemond, unless something new comes to light, most of the posters here will realize that: (a) either you are not willing to do the basic research (forum manners no-no), or (b) you are not behaving in a rational manner, and ultimately you will get labeled "troll". Forgive me if that sounds harsh, I'm just trying to represent the situation rationally and logically.

Wow . yeah "results in disgust" and labeling here which proves some points in many different ways. There is no way anyone should be taking a different side around here. Done with it. disgust all around.

 

[ultimobici]

What I am asking, is for consistency, in response to scrutiny of riders.

A mention of LeMond, and doping, results in disgust from certain posters.
The same posters are happy to accuse other riders of doping, without the evidence that seems so necessary when dealing with LeMond.

If scrutiny based on hearsay and guesswork is OK for current riders, then surely it is OK for LeMond.

Personally I'm not happy with either, but no one should start complaining when it's their boy on the end of the noose.

As to LeMond's time at Gan, his career was all but over by that time, and nothing, including his performances, would suggest anything untoward was happening.

The disgust isn't because it's Lemond. It's stems from the exasperation from pointing out the patently obvious.

Lemond hasn't skulked off into quiet retirement, avoiding references to doping à la Kelly or others, far from it. He has climbed up onto the parapet and dived headlong into the debate about doping and how to deal with it. Yet in all that time no mud has been sloshed his way, much less stuck.

The idiocy of trying to suggest he doped during his career is akin to trying to prove the earth is flat or the centre of the universe.

 

[andy1234]

A mention of Lemond and doping results in disgust . . .

BECAUSE, it has already been covered, and covered, and covered, ad nauseum. There aren't questions that haven't been answered, many times, and those answers are readily found with a little effort and time. Because you seem to be unwilling to recognize that Lemond has already passed through the same scrutiny being applied to Sky etc today, and passed the scrutiny. Because the drugs applied when Lemond was riding were different, and that difference is important to a discussion of doping in cycling; which also seems to be an argument you have problems coming to grips with.

You seem rational - but you keep returning to the same scorched ground. The "hearsay and guesswork" for Lemond got covered years ago, and answered. Once it has been adequately covered and refuted or validated, then you no longer have to rely on hearsay and guesswork. So far as I've noticed, all that "hearsay and guesswork", regarding Lemond, that has been refuted, has been repeated (including refutations) in these forums, and much in this thread. It is there, and it is rude to ignore what can easily be found.

That is why you see the disgust. If you want to use "hearsay and guesswork" to implicate Lemond, unless something new comes to light, most of the posters here will realize that: (a) either you are not willing to do the basic research (forum manners no-no), or (b) you are not behaving in a rational manner, and ultimately you will get labeled "troll". Forgive me if that sounds harsh, I'm just trying to represent the situation rationally and logically.

Some of the points raised ad nauseum have been answered with facts.
Many times, however, they have been answered with opinion.
Just because many people have raised the same opinion, many times, does not make it fact.

I stated an opinion regarding the perception of certain events taking place with LeMond and his association with a doping doctor. If you don't like that opinion, hard luck, but it doesn't change the fact that if those events had taken place today, eyebrows would not only raise, they would make it into orbit.

Just because the contents of a syringe in the 80s didn't change donkeys into Racehorses, it doesn't make the doping discussion any less valid. This seems to be something that YOU seem to have problems coming to grips with.


If you or others don't want to repeat a discussion that has already happened, stay out of it. If you believe the subject does not deserve further discussion, then stay out of it. If reading people's opinions about events that have been discussed ad nauseum is a problem, I suggest the Sky thread would also be a good place to vent your frustration.

 

[eagleofditchling]

Its been well and truly covered. FYI Lemond weighed 67kg, speed was 54kmh but over only 25km with a substantial tail wind, and elevation of only 75m - the fastest individual time trial for a distance longer than 10 km ever ridden. Lemond is quoted as:


430W/67kg = 6.4W/kg over 26m 57s which sounds very achievable. Someone more mathematically inclined can determine if the 420-430W quoted is true from the speed, mass and time etc.

Compare that to more than twice the distances and over hilly courses in recent years

Estimates are the new fangled aero bars gave Lemond a 60s advantage, and the aero helmet another 16s advantage. Just goes to show grown men shouldn't have ponytails lol

or get a boil on their **** before a crucial time trial

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Some of the points raised ad nauseum have been answered with facts.
Many times, however, they have been answered with opinion.
Just because many people have raised the same opinion, many times, does not make it fact.

I stated an opinion regarding the perception of certain events taking place with LeMond and his association with a doping doctor. If you don't like that opinion, hard luck, but it doesn't change the fact that if those events had taken place today, eyebrows would not only raise, they would make it into orbit.

Just because the contents of a syringe in the 80s didn't change donkeys into Racehorses, it doesn't make the doping discussion any less valid. This seems to be something that YOU seem to have problems coming to grips with.

Hi Andy,
So basically all you have and keep repeating is some perception of yours to do with Sky - I asked you to list those "certain posters" and you ignored it.

If you or others don't want to repeat a discussion that has already happened, stay out of it. If you believe the subject does not deserve further discussion, then stay out of it. If reading people's opinions about events that have been discussed ad nauseum is a problem, I suggest the Sky thread would also be a good place to vent your frustration.

As you are the one who keeps bring up Sky, maybe that is the place you should go to.

If you wish to discuss LeMond then do so - of course because you have nothing new you will inevitably bring up lots of things that have been discussed ad nauseum - I have no problem posting the quick rebuttals to all. Simple as copy and paste.

 

[DirtyWorks]

The idiocy of trying to suggest he doped during his career is akin to trying to prove the earth is flat or the centre of the universe.

To extend your analogy a bit, it doesn't stop people from believing the earth is something like 6000 years old.

Which is why, every time some new joker tries it, we have to recycle the same old information. If we don't, then nonsense like a 6000 year old earth somehow turn into fact and Andy1234 becomes the Lemond authority and posts junk like this http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/05/30/how-old-is-earth and Ed Coyle's work is legitimate.

Debunking the vague allegations even though repetitive has to be done.

 

[eagleofditchling]

or get a boil on their **** before a crucial time trial

or let your rival wheelsuck you up every bloody climb!

or if your perico miss the prologue start by 2 1/2 minutes!

 

[86TDFWinner]

If we don't, then nonsense like a 6000 year old earth somehow turn into fact and Andy1234 becomes the Lemond authority and posts junk like this http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/05/30/how-old-is-earth

LOL, Spot on again except Andy will NEVER be a "LeMond Authority", not even close. But hey, if he wants to continue on with this fallacy of his, let him.

He still hasn't explained what LeMond should be scrutinized about. When he "assumed/kinda/sorta"(wink wink) posted innuendo that LeMond doped, he never posted any facts to back that up either. He seems to ignore it whenever folks ask him to provide proof(Proof he doesn't have & he knows it) of anything.

 

[pmcg76]

Some of the points raised ad nauseum have been answered with facts.
Many times, however, they have been answered with opinion.
Just because many people have raised the same opinion, many times, does not make it fact.

I stated an opinion regarding the perception of certain events taking place with LeMond and his association with a doping doctor. If you don't like that opinion, hard luck, but it doesn't change the fact that if those events had taken place today, eyebrows would not only raise, they would make it into orbit.

Just because the contents of a syringe in the 80s didn't change donkeys into Racehorses, it doesn't make the doping discussion any less valid. This seems to be something that YOU seem to have problems coming to grips with.


If you or others don't want to repeat a discussion that has already happened, stay out of it. If you believe the subject does not deserve further discussion, then stay out of it. If reading people's opinions about events that have been discussed ad nauseum is a problem, I suggest the Sky thread would also be a good place to vent your frustration.

Your whole sour-puss boils down to the fact that Greg LeMond get's a pass when it comes to doping whilst SKY are getting crucified.

So lets get into the details then.

Dodgy doctors.

Yvan Van Mol started working with ADR during 1989 so how did anyone know he was a dodgy doctor at that time when he had no previous experience in pro cycling. LeMond has stated that he had only one encounter with Van Mol at the Giro which seem's realistic. That season LeMond started his racing in the Americas, then spent Feb/Mar in Europe where he started of well but his form deteriorated badly before he returned to the US, spending almost two months back home before returning to Europe for the Giro at which he encountered Van Mol.

Van Mol's reputation developed based on what he did with riders after ADR , in particular at GB-MG/Mapei teams and only became public knowledge much later. He is not regarded as an important part of LeMond's success. If Van Mol was the key to LeMond's sudden success, the logical question would be why did LeMond not continue to work with him??? Surely he would have insisted on him moving to Z like he did with Johan Lammerts.

Or are you suggesting that LeMond was somehow working with Van Mol in secret during 1990. It was widely known that Adrie Van Diemen coached LeMond but not a mention of Van Mol and as I said, it was not like Van Mol had a reputation at the time the way a certain G.Leinders had before he joined SKY. There was no need to hide a link with Van Mol in 89.

Even though SKY promoted a Zero Tolerance Policy, they still hired Leinders even though they had a number of former Rabobank riders on their team(Flecha, Hayman etc) who probably knew the score. After struggling on the stage race front for 18 months, it just so happens that around the same time of Leinders hiring, a few SKY riders suddenly transform into amazing riders having previously been average riders and have remained at that level since and SKY only ditched Leinders when they bowed to public pressure when his backstory hit the newspapers.

Now it could be argued that LeMond underwent a transformation in 89 but then we already knew LeMond had the talent to compete at the top level beforehand and was suffering health problems whilst we never witnessed such talent from the SKY boys even though they claimed health problems also. It is much more easy to believe a top rider returning to the top level following years of ill-heath than to see 2-3 guys performing at levels they had never previously been near.

A recap:
LeMond
Receiving an injection from a (at the time)little known team doctor who later became known as a doping doctor.

20+ years without any known connection to doping.

SKY

Despite promoting a ZTP, employing a doctor with a history in the sport that coincided with the EPO/Blood doping era and from a team that had riders implicated in doping scandals.

SKY riders suddenly transforming from being average riders to top tier riders in a manner not seen since the good ol EPO days.

SKY then sacking team doctor because of past associations with doping.

I think it seem's pretty logical why SKY might arouse more suspicion than Greg LeMond on the doping front.

 

[andy1234]

LOL, Spot on again except Andy will NEVER be a "LeMond Authority", not even close. But hey, if he wants to continue on with this fallacy of his, let him.

He still hasn't explained what LeMond should be scrutinized about. When he "assumed/kinda/sorta"(wink wink) posted innuendo that LeMond doped, he never posted any facts to back that up either. He seems to ignore it whenever folks ask him to provide proof(Proof he doesn't have & he knows it) of anything.

I don't have to provide proof, because I haven't accused him of anything.
Don't let the truth get in the way of your outrage though.

No winking, no sorta, kinda....
Simple statement of facts. If it upsets you to discuss them, move on.

 

[D-Queued]

I don't have to provide proof, because I haven't accused him of anything.
Don't let the truth get in the way of your outrage though.

No winking, no sorta, kinda....
Simple statement of facts. If it upsets you to discuss them, move on.

Saying that it should be discussed is an accusation. It is a serious accusation when the topic has had the amount of discussion that it has had.

It has been discussed. When you have some proof, please re-open the discussion.

Otherwise, your assertions are disingenuous.

Dave.

 

[andy1234]

Saying that it should be discussed is an accusation. It is a serious accusation when the topic has had the amount of discussion that it has had.

It has been discussed. When you have some proof, please re-open the discussion.

Otherwise, your assertions are disingenuous.

Dave.

Priceless.
You know you posted this in the clinic, right?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I don't have to provide proof, because I haven't accused him of anything.
Don't let the truth get in the way of your outrage though.

No winking, no sorta, kinda....
Simple statement of facts. If it upsets you to discuss them, move on.

Its hard to accuse LeMond because there is no proof on the guy.

The only thing you thought you had was trying to accuse "certain posters" of something. Yet you have ignored naming them, so you actually have nothing to discuss.