LeMond III

[blutto]

Re:

The Millar TT was at the end of the tour too and if Armstrong would've taken risks that day, he would've gone faster than LeMond IMO. As far as I remember, that TT was also done with a strong tailwind, albeit in rainy conditions.

...if is a good word ain't it....a perfect linguistic masking agent for a loser argument...

....btw just added the Miller race to add a bit of meat to the picture....the Rohan numbers being the important thingee here....

....and just remembered something important....if LeMond had been on Rohan's bike and with the other modern aerodynamic aids he would have handily beat Rohan's speed....and that at the end of a Tour....just sayin' eh....

Cheers

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

The Millar TT was at the end of the tour too and if Armstrong would've taken risks that day, he would've gone faster than LeMond IMO. As far as I remember, that TT was also done with a strong tailwind, albeit in rainy conditions.

...if is a good word ain't it....a perfect linguistic masking agent for a loser argument...

....btw just added the Miller race to add a bit of meat to the picture....the Rohan numbers being the important thingee here....

....and just remembered something important....if LeMond had been on Rohan's bike and with the other modern aerodynamic aids he would have handily beat Rohan's speed....and that at the end of a Tour....just sayin' eh....

Cheers

from memory lemond had rear disc, aero bars and helmet

the big gains presumably already made?

not that there aren't others but that the big dent was already there when compared to standard bike/set up

 

[Zypherov]

The Lemond TT in 1989 had a slight downhill profile.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Rohan Dennis' TT is the important one? Let's just forget that the race was held in scorching hot conditions and that the veritable GC guys did horrible by comparison. 'Loser argument' has a nice ring to it, but you shouldn't be so critical of your own words, eh?

 

[gillan1969]

mind you...he also whapped over ten minutes into Millar and Herrara (amongst others) in the '82 (hilly) Avenir

what did that reek of I wonder?

 

[MarkvW]

mind you...he also whapped over ten minutes into Millar and Herrara (amongst others) in the '82 (hilly) Avenir

what did that reek of I wonder?

Amazing! He could withdraw blood throughout the season (for his TdF triumph) and STILL be great for the rest of the season! How could he do that??

The answer is obvious! LeMond had sole access to a secret wonder drug.

 

[blutto]

Re:

Rohan Dennis' TT is the important one? Let's just forget that the race was held in scorching hot conditions and that the veritable GC guys did horrible by comparison. 'Loser argument' has a nice ring to it, but you shouldn't be so critical of your own words, eh?

...which race....?....

Cheers

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

True, you only get stronger when you're in yellow. Lance, Indurain, and Froome have said say so.

Glenn, bang on.

I fell victim to this type of thought before also. Come up with ways that it is possible for someone to ride a bicycle for that long in a grand tour and still be or in almost all cases in better condition on the final TT and mountain stages than when they began the tour.

It is almost like someone pauses reality to fit what they want. The Human body will not react that way to that many endurance days. It is not possible.

Here's an idea–watch the race. In full if you can. Watch days on end when Lemond falters in the mountains and loses time, unable to respond to attacks. He starts to recover toward the end (relative to the competition) as the race eases up, and wins a couple of stages late. He does well in all the TT's, mountains included.

Watch on the other hand Fignon recover and go nuts in the mountains late, taking time on multiple stages, attacking constantly.

When asked why he didn't attack or chase at various times in the mountains, he responds that he's "too tired".

But everyone wants to focus on one downhill stage with a tailwind where a bunch of riders set crazy-fast times, because Fignon was too cocky and vain to put on a helmet riding into his hometown, and as such fell out of the fastest times.

I don't know if he was doping, but the reasons posted here to suspect him are dumb, and clearly agenda-driven by some. It's borne out of having no sense of the races he rode. No, conclusions are reached and attempts to justify them are proffered from just reading tiny excerpts of what happened from decades ago. It's just poor analysis, skewed by a total lack of context or the full story.

The fastest time-trial is Rohan Dennis' stage 1 of the 2015 Tour de France in Utrecht, won at an average of 55.446 km/h (34.5 mph).

Greg LeMond 54.545 km/h Versailles - Paris (34.5 km) 198

David Millar 54.361 km/h Pornic - Nantes (49 km) 2003

....please note the fastest time above was done at the beginning of the Tour whereas the LeMond miracle occurred at the end of the Tour......and btw the difference in speeds can easily be attributed to much more efficient bike/vestment aerodynamics and a significantly shorter race difference...

Cheers

Strange that you think anyone doesn't know this, but ok...

So what's the analysis here? No one can recover at all during a GT? You're not saying that, and I assume you don't mean that, but how do we account for his lackluster performances in the mountains in the second and third week? Clearly he was tired and losing time to Fignon, who we know was doping. It does not surprise me that after a few days of sitting in a rider like Lemond who was always good in GTs could recover somewhat.

So did Lemond dope, but only on the last couple of days? That makes no sense. EPO doesn't work that way, and that's the accusation on this thread, right? He "brought it to the peloton". Well, his performance simply doesn't mesh with that in any way.

I don't get what the thinking is here. Basically a great rider has a great day in a downhill, tailwind aided, short TT, where he has an opportunity to win the race, where many riders have a "great day", except for the guy who is suffering from a saddle sore and is too proud to use a helmet and that's evidence Lemond is doping? OK, but I'm unconvinced.

His performance in that race looks like anything BUT someone on EPO or other recovery drugs. He was up and down the whole time. Never looked anywhere near as strong or consistent as he had in '85 or '86.

I don't know if he was doping, but his performance would indicate he was not. As would many other things. I tend to believe those who were there and knew him, and I tend to believe what I saw, which was a much diminished rider from before. He looked nothing like the insanity which followed.

Would have been damn interesting to have seen an EPO-fueled Lemond.

 

[MarkvW]

Re: Re:

True, you only get stronger when you're in yellow. Lance, Indurain, and Froome have said say so.

Glenn, bang on.

I fell victim to this type of thought before also. Come up with ways that it is possible for someone to ride a bicycle for that long in a grand tour and still be or in almost all cases in better condition on the final TT and mountain stages than when they began the tour.

It is almost like someone pauses reality to fit what they want. The Human body will not react that way to that many endurance days. It is not possible.

Here's an idea–watch the race. In full if you can. Watch days on end when Lemond falters in the mountains and loses time, unable to respond to attacks. He starts to recover toward the end (relative to the competition) as the race eases up, and wins a couple of stages late. He does well in all the TT's, mountains included.

Watch on the other hand Fignon recover and go nuts in the mountains late, taking time on multiple stages, attacking constantly.

When asked why he didn't attack or chase at various times in the mountains, he responds that he's "too tired".

But everyone wants to focus on one downhill stage with a tailwind where a bunch of riders set crazy-fast times, because Fignon was too cocky and vain to put on a helmet riding into his hometown, and as such fell out of the fastest times.

I don't know if he was doping, but the reasons posted here to suspect him are dumb, and clearly agenda-driven by some. It's borne out of having no sense of the races he rode. No, conclusions are reached and attempts to justify them are proffered from just reading tiny excerpts of what happened from decades ago. It's just poor analysis, skewed by a total lack of context or the full story.

The fastest time-trial is Rohan Dennis' stage 1 of the 2015 Tour de France in Utrecht, won at an average of 55.446 km/h (34.5 mph).

Greg LeMond 54.545 km/h Versailles - Paris (34.5 km) 198

David Millar 54.361 km/h Pornic - Nantes (49 km) 2003

....please note the fastest time above was done at the beginning of the Tour whereas the LeMond miracle occurred at the end of the Tour......and btw the difference in speeds can easily be attributed to much more efficient bike/vestment aerodynamics and a significantly shorter race difference...

Cheers

Strange that you think anyone doesn't know this, but ok...

So what's the analysis here? No one can recover at all during a GT? You're not saying that, and I assume you don't mean that, but how do we account for his lackluster performances in the mountains in the second and third week? Clearly he was tired and losing time to Fignon, who we know was doping. It does not surprise me that after a few days of sitting in a rider like Lemond who was always good in GTs could recover somewhat.

So did Lemond dope, but only on the last couple of days? That makes no sense. EPO doesn't work that way, and that's the accusation on this thread, right? He "brought it to the peloton". Well, his performance simply doesn't mesh with that in any way.

I don't get what the thinking is here. Basically a great rider has a great day in a downhill, tailwind aided, short TT, where he has an opportunity to win the race, where many riders have a "great day", except for the guy who is suffering from a saddle sore and is too proud to use a helmet and that's evidence Lemond is doping? OK, but I'm unconvinced.

His performance in that race looks like anything BUT someone on EPO or other recovery drugs. He was up and down the whole time. Never looked anywhere near as strong or consistent as he had in '85 or '86.

I don't know if he was doping, but his performance would indicate he was not. As would many other things. I tend to believe those who were there and knew him, and I tend to believe what I saw, which was a much diminished rider from before. He looked nothing like the insanity which followed.

Would have been damn interesting to have seen an EPO-fueled Lemond.

LeMond starts out with a naturally highly optimized oxygen transport system. Hard to envision EPO helping him much.

 

[sniper]

He starts his carreer with a vo2max of 78.
Ends it with a vo2max of 90+.
Next.

 

[MarkvW]

Re:

He starts his carreer with a vo2max of 78.
Ends it with a vo2max of 90+.
Next.

A very Lance Armstrong style argument.

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

The Millar TT was at the end of the tour too and if Armstrong would've taken risks that day, he would've gone faster than LeMond IMO. As far as I remember, that TT was also done with a strong tailwind, albeit in rainy conditions.

...if is a good word ain't it....a perfect linguistic masking agent for a loser argument...

....btw just added the Miller race to add a bit of meat to the picture....the Rohan numbers being the important thingee here....

....and just remembered something important....if LeMond had been on Rohan's bike and with the other modern aerodynamic aids he would have handily beat Rohan's speed....and that at the end of a Tour....just sayin' eh....

Cheers

from memory lemond had rear disc, aero bars and helmet

the big gains presumably already made?

not that there aren't others but that the big dent was already there when compared to standard bike/set up

....if the numbers claimed by purveyors of go fast stuff are to be believed LeMond could have gained about 70 watts of aerodynamic advantage with the latest and the greatest ( front wheel, frame, handlebars, helmet, skinsuit, shoe covers....)....

Cheers

 

[blutto]

Re:

He starts his carreer with a vo2max of 78.
Ends it with a vo2max of 90+.
Next.

...well if you listen to Greg he had the highest ever....like ever....

Cheers

 

[red_flanders]

So now he's on oxygen vector doping since he was a junior and you know his V02 max details at various points. I guess the V02 max doesn't matter that much posts only come out when it's pointed out how high he claims it was.

Comedy.

 

[The Hegelian]

I'm sure this has been covered, but if Lemond-1989-epo is the argument, then what's the explanation for '91 and especially '92? In '92 he was dropped like a stone on a medium mountain stage; lost 30+ minutes and then abandoned. That's a big fall from grace for someone with that kind of GT pedigree - at exactly the time when epo usage became widespread across the peloton.

 

[Nomad]

Re:

I'm sure this has been covered, but if Lemond-1989-epo is the argument, then what's the explanation for '91 and especially '92? In '92 he was dropped like a stone on a medium mountain stage; lost 30+ minutes and then abandoned. That's a big fall from grace for someone with that kind of GT pedigree - at exactly the time when epo usage became widespread across the peloton.

Great point...and I always thought that was the most compelling argument to show that LeMond wasn't involved with either EPO or blood doping in his career. If you look at the 91Tour, Fignon finishes 6th (11:27 back) & GL finishes 7th (13:13) behind Big Mig, who in that year makes his "incredible" jump to Tour Champion.

The following year, Fignon slides down to 23rd while GL DNFs. Both Fignon & GL are in their early 30s...so I don't think aging would be the sole factor in their decline. Are there any notible serious injuries that either one had in 91 or 92 that would explain their sudden decline? I haven't heard of any. Fignon, who has even admitted to using cortisone throughout his career, says he noted major changes in the sport in the early 90s with the onset & routine use of EPO & HGH...and wanted no part of it. If GL was using EPO, he should have not only decisively beat FIgnon, but should have given BIg Mig a run for his money, and perhaps even beaten him

The other compelling evidence, which has been discussed here before, is the sudden, sharp improvement in climbing speeds after 1990 (apologize for the redundancy). For example, take the most current list of the top 100 all-time best times up Alpe d'Huez:

http://www.climbing-records.com/2015/07/three-riders-make-it-into-alpe-dhuez.html?m=1

Which stands out to me on that list is that with exception of 5 passport era riders (Froome/Quintana/Valverde /Porte/Rodriquez), all 100 hundred times are riders from the 90s & 00s...the prevelant EPO/blood doping & HGH period. No times are from the pre-90s; no LeMond, no Fignon, no Hinault, no Roche...no one. Didn't GL ride Alpe d'Huez a few times in his career, including one being a TT? If he, or anyone else from the 80s, were 02-vector doping, why don't any of their times make the top 100 list? Since 02-vector doping significantly improves time to exhaustion at submaximal effort, I would think GL would have had some of his Alped'Huez times make this list.

IMO, and FWIW, it looks like neither LeMond or Fignon could keep up with EPO/HGH-fueled monsters of the 90s...and sadly had to give up.

 

[The Hegelian]

A further point is that the '92 tour was the first where it was ridden at a relentless pace from day one. I remember the murmurings of how crazy and aggressive the peloton had become on the traditional easy flat sprinters first week - murmurings which in hindsight were code for 'the new era of epo has arisen'.
I'm happy to be considered naive on this matter, but the fact that Lemond was blown up before they even hit the high mountains (and that he was absolutely destroyed in the TT) does beg a lot of questions about how it could be plausible that he was an early adapter of epo rather than someone who more or less forced to retire early because of it. I mean, he was done by '92, at precisely the point in time when epo became ubiquitous.
Just as donkeys like Chiapucci were becoming racehorses, racehorses like Lemond were becoming donkeys. And the cause is surely the same.....

 

[HelmutRoole]

Re:

I'm sure this has been covered, but if Lemond-1989-epo is the argument, then what's the explanation for '91 and especially '92?...

The explanation is, he was doping all along and lost his advantage when everyone else caught on.

 

[The Hegelian]

Re: Re:

I'm sure this has been covered, but if Lemond-1989-epo is the argument, then what's the explanation for '91 and especially '92?...

The explanation is, he was doping all along and lost his advantage when everyone else caught on.

That's a very weak and implausible explanation though, because:
a. No one asserts that epo was on the scene when he was a dominant younger rider - early '80's and into mid '80's. At earliest, it may have been adopted in the late 80's, hence the discussion about his tt in 1989. So the explanation cannot account for how he won WC's and TDF's before epo was being used. By every account, his peak was '85/'86. Is that really your assertion: that Lemond was good then because he was the only one using epo?
b. In 1992 he didn't merely 'lose his advantage.' He basically went from best GT rider in the world to totally noncompetitive. For your explanation to hold, wouldn't you need Lemond to remain constant (whilst others 'catch up'), hence producing more competitors at the same level? But this didn't happen in reality - the competitors on epo started doing extraordinary things. Indurain's tt in 1992 was outrageous. Chiapucci's breakaway was outrageous. Lemond was out the back of the groupetto on cat 4 climbs.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

I'm sure this has been covered, but if Lemond-1989-epo is the argument, then what's the explanation for '91 and especially '92?...

The explanation is, he was doping all along and lost his advantage when everyone else caught on.

so epo/blood doping season long in '81, '82, '83, '84, 85, and '86?????

yup that passes muster as an argument

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

I'm sure this has been covered, but if Lemond-1989-epo is the argument, then what's the explanation for '91 and especially '92?...

The explanation is, he was doping all along and lost his advantage when everyone else caught on.

That's a very weak and implausible explanation though, because:
a. No one asserts that epo was on the scene when he was a dominant younger rider - early '80's and into mid '80's. At earliest, it may have been adopted in the late 80's, hence the discussion about his tt in 1989. So the explanation cannot account for how he won WC's and TDF's before epo was being used. By every account, his peak was '85/'86. Is that really your assertion: that Lemond was good then because he was the only one using epo?
b. In 1992 he didn't merely 'lose his advantage.' He basically went from best GT rider in the world to totally noncompetitive. For your explanation to hold, wouldn't you need Lemond to remain constant (whilst others 'catch up'), hence producing more competitors at the same level? But this didn't happen in reality - the competitors on epo started doing extraordinary things. Indurain's tt in 1992 was outrageous. Chiapucci's breakaway was outrageous. Lemond was out the back of the groupetto on cat 4 climbs.

sorry...missed that before my shorter reply...spot on

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

I'm sure this has been covered, but if Lemond-1989-epo is the argument, then what's the explanation for '91 and especially '92?...

The explanation is, he was doping all along and lost his advantage when everyone else caught on.

That's a very weak and implausible explanation though, because:
a. No one asserts that epo was on the scene when he was a dominant younger rider - early '80's and into mid '80's. At earliest, it may have been adopted in the late 80's, hence the discussion about his tt in 1989. So the explanation cannot account for how he won WC's and TDF's before epo was being used. By every account, his peak was '85/'86. Is that really your assertion: that Lemond was good then because he was the only one using epo?
b. In 1992 he didn't merely 'lose his advantage.' He basically went from best GT rider in the world to totally noncompetitive. For your explanation to hold, wouldn't you need Lemond to remain constant (whilst others 'catch up'), hence producing more competitors at the same level? But this didn't happen in reality - the competitors on epo started doing extraordinary things. Indurain's tt in 1992 was outrageous. Chiapucci's breakaway was outrageous. Lemond was out the back of the groupetto on cat 4 climbs.

EPO had nothing to do with Lemonds demise. He couldn't finish races ffs. Clean Hampsten and others had no such problems.

Greg himself blamed it to sickness, particularly myopathy.
Max Testa had a more straightforward explanation: Lemond had used too much drugs throughout his career.

Note that both explanations are not mutually exclusive. A typical cause for myopathy is excessive use of steroids.

But this ground has been covered amply before. Do take your time to read back into the thread.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

I'm sure this has been covered, but if Lemond-1989-epo is the argument, then what's the explanation for '91 and especially '92?...

The explanation is, he was doping all along and lost his advantage when everyone else caught on.

That's a very weak and implausible explanation though, because:
a. No one asserts that epo was on the scene when he was a dominant younger rider - early '80's and into mid '80's. At earliest, it may have been adopted in the late 80's, hence the discussion about his tt in 1989. So the explanation cannot account for how he won WC's and TDF's before epo was being used. By every account, his peak was '85/'86. Is that really your assertion: that Lemond was good then because he was the only one using epo?
b. In 1992 he didn't merely 'lose his advantage.' He basically went from best GT rider in the world to totally noncompetitive. For your explanation to hold, wouldn't you need Lemond to remain constant (whilst others 'catch up'), hence producing more competitors at the same level? But this didn't happen in reality - the competitors on epo started doing extraordinary things. Indurain's tt in 1992 was outrageous. Chiapucci's breakaway was outrageous. Lemond was out the back of the groupetto on cat 4 climbs.

EPO had nothing to do with Lemonds demise. He couldn't finish races ffs. Clean Hampsten and others had no such problems.

Greg himself blamed it to sickness, particularly myopathy.
Max Testa had a more straightforward explanation: Lemond had used too much drugs throughout his career.

Note that both explanations are not mutually exclusive. A typical cause for myopathy is excessive use of steroids.

But this ground has been covered amply before. Do take your time to read back into the thread.

so a huge cycling star and current cycling personality had a drug problem so bad that it destroyed him and the evidence is one guy???? Sounds like Froome's dodgy fax in reverse.....

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: Re:

I'm sure this has been covered, but if Lemond-1989-epo is the argument, then what's the explanation for '91 and especially '92?...

The explanation is, he was doping all along and lost his advantage when everyone else caught on.

That's a very weak and implausible explanation though, because:
a. No one asserts that epo was on the scene when he was a dominant younger rider - early '80's and into mid '80's. At earliest, it may have been adopted in the late 80's, hence the discussion about his tt in 1989. So the explanation cannot account for how he won WC's and TDF's before epo was being used. By every account, his peak was '85/'86. Is that really your assertion: that Lemond was good then because he was the only one using epo?
b. In 1992 he didn't merely 'lose his advantage.' He basically went from best GT rider in the world to totally noncompetitive. For your explanation to hold, wouldn't you need Lemond to remain constant (whilst others 'catch up'), hence producing more competitors at the same level? But this didn't happen in reality - the competitors on epo started doing extraordinary things. Indurain's tt in 1992 was outrageous. Chiapucci's breakaway was outrageous. Lemond was out the back of the groupetto on cat 4 climbs.

EPO had nothing to do with Lemonds demise. He couldn't finish races ffs. Clean Hampsten and others had no such problems.

Greg himself blamed it to sickness, particularly myopathy.
Max Testa had a more straightforward explanation: Lemond had used too much drugs throughout his career.

Note that both explanations are not mutually exclusive. A typical cause for myopathy is excessive use of steroids.

But this ground has been covered amply before. Do take your time to read back into the thread.

We've covered this. Mitochondrial myopathy is a genetic disorder. I've provided many links to that effect such as: https://www.mda.org/disease/mitochondrial-myopathies/causes-inheritance

quote: "Mitochondrial diseases aren’t contagious, and they aren’t caused by anything a person does. They’re caused by mutations, or changes, in genes — the cells’ blueprints for making proteins."

Furthermore, we've discussed how mitochondrial myopathy is diagnosed via muscle biopsy - specifically looking for ragged red fibers. quote: "When treated with a dye that stains mitochondria red, muscles affected by mitochondrial disease often show ragged red fibers". Considering this, Greg may have been misdiagnosed.

quote:"Although the finding is most classically
associated with mitochondrial myopathy, ragged red
fibers have been described rarely in association with other
muscle pathologies, including normal aging"

http://ajcp.oxfordjournals.org/content/ajcpath/116/3/326.full.pdf

And lastly, I'm quite certain that you can't quote Max Testa. The anecdote is Greg's description of what Cees Beers recounts as what Testa told him. When asked to clarify, Greg goes on at length describing why it's BS.

This keeps coming up at regular intervals, much like the kidney thing.

Why?

John Swanson

 

[pmcg76]

Re: Re:

I'm sure this has been covered, but if Lemond-1989-epo is the argument, then what's the explanation for '91 and especially '92?...

The explanation is, he was doping all along and lost his advantage when everyone else caught on.

That's a very weak and implausible explanation though, because:
a. No one asserts that epo was on the scene when he was a dominant younger rider - early '80's and into mid '80's. At earliest, it may have been adopted in the late 80's, hence the discussion about his tt in 1989. So the explanation cannot account for how he won WC's and TDF's before epo was being used. By every account, his peak was '85/'86. Is that really your assertion: that Lemond was good then because he was the only one using epo?
b. In 1992 he didn't merely 'lose his advantage.' He basically went from best GT rider in the world to totally noncompetitive. For your explanation to hold, wouldn't you need Lemond to remain constant (whilst others 'catch up'), hence producing more competitors at the same level? But this didn't happen in reality - the competitors on epo started doing extraordinary things. Indurain's tt in 1992 was outrageous. Chiapucci's breakaway was outrageous. Lemond was out the back of the groupetto on cat 4 climbs.

EPO had nothing to do with Lemonds demise. He couldn't finish races ffs. Clean Hampsten and others had no such problems.

Greg himself blamed it to sickness, particularly myopathy.
Max Testa had a more straightforward explanation: Lemond had used too much drugs throughout his career.

Note that both explanations are not mutually exclusive. A typical cause for myopathy is excessive use of steroids.

But this ground has been covered amply before. Do take your time to read back into the thread.

so a huge cycling star and current cycling personality had a drug problem so bad that it destroyed him and the evidence is one guy???? Sounds like Froome's dodgy fax in reverse.....

Oh, but wait, you missed the best part which sniper will omit every single time.

The source of this Max Testa rumour, the person who brought this to public attention is .............wait for it.....................................Greg LeMond himself .

LeMond was talking in an interview and the discussion was about people being suspicious of his perfromances. To illustrate the nature of the innuendo and rumours that were spread in the peloton, LeMond relayed a story about how during the worst of his poor form, 93-94, a friend of Greg's contacted Max Testa to see if he could help get to the bottom of LeMonds health problems. Testa apparently suggested to the person, that it was because Greg took too many drugs. LeMond's friend told Testa that was BS and it ended there. This all from LeMonds mouth.

So it was LeMond who brought this whole rumour to the public attention but sniper is now unbelievably trying to turn this into evidence against LeMond. Thus you will see sniper mention the Max Testa rumour repeatedly, but will never mention where that story originated. More misrepresentation as always.

Of course another sniper mantra is that you should never believe anything from the horses mouth(LeMond).............except of course when he thinks it might somehow be used as his version of "evidence".

Mind-boggling is the only word.