wang you are not dissapointing me again.
Read my posts AGAIN and I am the one who said they were ALL at it and there you go.
I am not often wrong but I am right again!
20 out of 21 podiums in TDF dopers and the other has the jury out.
wang whats your point again? Do you have one?
Toned down their document ? maybe you can educate me on this as i do not understand how you know this. If i am making any incorrect assumptions please tell me and i apologise beforehand if that is the case. But did you read their document before they spell checked and double checked what they were saying? do you work at usada and were part of the presentation of this document? If what you mean is that their document does not say as much as maybe "you" assumed or guessed they would because of earlier statements by them. Then maybe that is what you should have said. i am sorry for being so so pedantic geeman and i know this is a very minor point to be making. Your accusations of hollow and lack of content will no doubt be aired again and i fully understand what you are saying. But quite clearly i am responding to your incorrect statements and trying to help you to be more accurate. In this way my post is not here to bring new facts , when i do wish to do that i will say so but this post and many others is in response to your misleading comments so is thus about that. Its just that you repeatedly present your thoughts and ideas in a light which can be misunderstood. This point is far from being one of the more sensitive and contentious that you have made. I do not want to be constantly pulling you up on misrepresentation of facts and stretching truth and opinions. But please try to refrain from being misleading geeman.You do make some good points and have some interesting things to say on the subject. So it is a shame that you opinions do not always match the facts you are quoting. Try researching a lot more about this case before making one sided comments. If you take time to read the better informed and concise posts by others on this forum you will see they make even handed comments based on FACTS and not what suits their views which you appear to be doing. Almost all the facts to this case are available on the net for you to read and then change your opinions.
Your thoughts and reference to different cyclists team directors and doctors is interesting and very much worthy of note. Yet it is la's past teams and directors/doctors at issue here and obviously is the reason why they are under scrutiny and what the posts here refer to as that is the issue being discussed, not pantani's/lemonds or any other cyclist. As you are so well informed maybe you can tell me if chris carmeachle has always been la's trainer and what is his past qualifications and connections to cycling teams? being busy with the family gives me little time to do the research you clearly enjoy and have time to do. The broader issue and widespread doping throughout the era la was active and before is of course relevant and worth attention. I am sure there are other threads here + in other cycling forums where this can be followed up. This thread if i am not mistaken is meant to be about teammates of la's testimony giving extra weight to the doping charges he faces. So i apologise if i am off the point also.
Thanks for any imfo you can share geeman, and look forward to hearing from you. oh sory about the mix up with posts, in a bit of a rush and my airhead just can not cope. thx again in advance geeie