You got me wrong. What I meant to say was that there's beacoup suspicion that Armstrong has doped and there's beacoup suspicion that Lemond
didn't dope. Whether LeMond doped or not I'm not gonna say anything since I don't know (anything) about him.
I was just saying that it's a pity that since lots of riders dope and have doped we can't be 100% sure that LeMond was clean because we can't prove it one-hundred-percent - even though we have evidence that he wouldn't have doped. So the same goes for Lance, it's just the other way around: no matter how much we doubt his performances we can't be 100% sure that he's doped, no matter how much evidence we have.
Did this clear things or did I just mess my message more?