Originally Posted by Harold74

My logic was not circular. The circular logic is shown in bold in your statement above. However, those words are yours and not mine. They are your incorrect recap of my argument.

My logic was linear and was this: [MOST CYCLISTS WERE DOPING AND LYING BOUT IT] --> [PROBABILITY (GREG DOPING & LYING) >> 0]



So you're being deliberately insulting? That again, is Lance-esque bullying and no way to prosecute a rational debate.



Okay, what is ridiculous about that argument? Add some logical meat to the insult, please.



I have no mysterious psychological need for Lemond to be guilty. I consider Lemond and Armstrong to both be role models of sorts even if both are manipulative, lying, dopers. I simply feel that Lance's perception of LeMond's potential doping forms part of the context in which Lance made his behavioral choices. In this sense, it barely matters whether or not LeMond was guilty. What matters is whether or not Lance would have perceived him to be guilty and, therefore, a hypocrite. Like me, I suspect that Lance did suspect LeMond's guilt.



Seriously? Your resting your defense of LeMond on the Freudian psychoanalysis of a stranger over the internet now? And somehow that's more acceptable as a form of argument than a rational discussion of logical probabilities?