Originally Posted by
livedarklions
Sorry but that is just babbling bs asserting we should just assume Lemond is guilty of something. That last sentence is so convoluted that I think you look embarrassed by it somewhere in the middle.
Effectively, you are refuting my logic by way launching personal attacks against me. I'm babbling, I'm spewing BS, my writing is convoluted, I look embarrassed.
Sadly, that is very Lance-esque of you.
Originally Posted by
livedarklions
I am not assuming his " probable " guilt because there's no individualized proof of any kind. None.
Individualized proof is not a valid argument against probable guilt. Probability is about aggregate trends, not individual outcomes. That was the crux of my post and precisely what facilitated Lance's debauchery for so long. Do they not flip coins and play cards where you live? I feel as though they probably do.