Nice try Frenchies, but I'm not buying it

It's one thing when I smear the name of cycling god Lance Armstrong by insinuating that he used performance enhancing drugs, but it's another when the French paper L'Equipe runs a story claiming that Armstrong used steroids during his 1999 Tour de France victory. (It's different when I did it, because I never claimed to have proof, plus I'm American). L'Equipe's story claims that a urine sample taken from Armstrong in 1999 tested positive for EPO, a popular performance enhancing drug among cyclists. As disheartening as this story may seem, I think one must look at the facts of the situation before rushing to judgment.

1) The urine sample that tested positive for EPO has not been verified by the laboratory that conducted the test as Armstrong's. In fact, the lab noted that the samples were anonymous, bearing only a six-digit number to identify the rider, and could not be matched with the name of any one cyclist.

2) Standard scientific procedure for doping tests is that two samples are taken, an A sample and a B sample. This is done in order to verify the results of the testing. In Armstrong's case, there is no B sample to verify the positive test.

3) The French paper that made the doping claim has a storied history of "hatin." After his seventh Tour victory, L'Equipe ran a story that said, "Never to such an extent, probably, has the departure of a champion been welcomed with such widespread relief." (Talk about crappy journalism...how can you make a bold statement like that and then retreat by saying "probably" afterward?)

Armstrong immediately called the allegations "tabloid journalism" and a "witch-hunt," and I am forced to agree with him. I guess our smelly friends in France don't believe in innocent until proven guilty, or burden of proof. The source and facts of the story are clearly in question. The French press is obviously bitter that Lance, a proud American, dominated the crap out of their little bike ride for seven years. Plus, the lab that conducted the test won't even come out and say it was Lance's piss! But that didn't stop the Tour de France Director (a bitter Frenchman) from making the irresponsible claim that the results were "scientific fact" that Lance used the drugs in 1999 and that Lance owes the public an explanation. Sorry Pierre, but just because the claim was made in a blatantly bias periodical in no way means that it is a fact. Lance owes the public nothing until accusers come up with evidence that could at least hold up on Judge Judy.

Granted, Lance has been accused of doping in the past, but these new results in no way prove that he took performance enhancing drugs. If anything, the story proves that the French cyclist community is a bunch of whining, mayo-on-fries eating chumps. Now that this claim has been made haters are hoping to brush off Lance's achievements as products of cheating in an attempt to reassert Euro reign in the sport.

I am not saying that Lance did not cheat by using drugs, but until more substantial evidence is brought forth, I will consider him innocent and a victim of Freedom-haters. If I was Lance, I would come out of retirement, submit to every test known to man and win the race one more time. Then, I would change the race's name to the "Tour de Freedom," because I love America that damn much.