Expertise on Lance Vs. France

The black conservative blogger on a French paper's claim that Lance Armstrong tested positive for EPO in urine samples in his first Tour de France victory, in 1999: "There's a lot of reasons to question this sudden 'proof' that Lance is guilty. First off, why would the labs keep Armstrong's sample for over six years? If that's the case, then have they tested other riders from 1999, and have any of them come up positive? Also, these were supposedly the backup ('B') samples. Without the actual samples that were tested in 1999 ('A'), there's really nothing that Armstrong can do to challenge the validity of the samples. Of course, the firestorm is about Lance because he's the most recognizable name in the Tour de France. But it's a little too ironic how they kept Lance's samples, which are supposed to be ano[n]myous. I'm sure a simple DNA check could be done to see whether it's his urine, correct? I'm not sure. Besides, the jealousy of Armstrong's success by the French is well known. Simply put, they don't like him. He's an American and he's stomping them in their own sport. Period. And despite the fact that Armstrong is one of the most drug tested athletes in the world, the French media have been busy spreading rumors that Armstrong has doped before. L'Equipe, the newspaper that 'busted' him, is linked to the Tour and has led the way in criticism of Armstrong in the past."

While I do believe that Lance Armstrong (and most other elite pro athletes) ain't clean, the evidence is quite flimsy here without the A samples.