Lance Armstrong's done enough to prove he's a clean athlete. Simon Bruty/SI
	MAILBAG Submit a comment or question for Arash. Your name: Your e-mail address: Your home town: Enter your question:

"The truth is, if you asked me to choose between winning the Tour de France and cancer, I would choose cancer. Odd as it sounds, I would rather have the title of cancer survivor than winner of the Tour, because of what it has done for me as a human being, a man, a husband, a son and a father."
-- Lance Armstrong

I'm waiting. I know it's only a matter of time. It will be the story that rocks the sports world down to its very foundation. A French newspaper will come out with a front-page story to taint the other major accomplishment in Lance Armstrong's career. They will prove that Armstrong never really had cancer. All that Livestrong talk -- nonsense, the belief that you can conquer a sport after being given a virtual death sentence -- lies.

It might seem impossible, but hey, if they can label Armstrong a cheat and a drug user after he has tested negative on countless occasions for the past seven years, anything is possible. Besides, as long as they can put it print, people will believe it.

That was never more evident than this week when the French sports daily L'Equipe reported that six urine samples Armstrong provided during his first tour win in 1999 tested positive for the red blood cell-booster EPO.

There are, of course, holes in L'Equipe's story. There are no A-samples available from the 1999 Tour -- the primary samples tested, which were used up in the initial testing. The B samples -- secondary samples used in conjunction with the A samples for testing -- that were kept were supposed to be anonymous and only tested for scientific purposes and then only with the athlete's permission. In this case, the scientific purpose was experimenting an EPO test that has yet to be perfected.

So, you have six-year old secondary urine samples, with no primary samples to compare it to, that are supposed to be kept anonymous, being tested with a yet-unproven procedure in some Parisian lab, which is so ethical it leaks names and results to a sports daily. We are supposed to accept that as fact that Armstrong cheated?

I'm sorry if I'm a little more skeptical than Tour de France director Jean-Marie Leblanc. He sounded convinced Armstrong had been caught, despite the reputation of his event depending upon the dozens of clean tests Armstrong has provided over the years, in comparison to one dirty report in a newspaper.

"For the first time -- and these are no longer rumors, or insinuations, these are proven scientific facts -- someone has shown me that in 1999, Armstrong had a banned substance called EPO in his body," Leblanc told L'Equipe. "The ball is now in his court. Why, how, by whom? He owes explanations to us and to everyone who follows the Tour. Today, what L'Equipe revealed shows me that I was fooled. We were all fooled."

Those comments, however, did more to prove LeBlanc's cowardliness and bias than taint Armstrong. Before making those comments to L'Equipe, LeBlanc spoke to Armstrong but didn't ask any of those questions or pass those judgments to him over the phone. In fact, according to Armstrong, he sounded as if he understood Armstrong's position and that protocols and rules were broken in regard to the test results. Unfortunately, like many French sports fans, who have labeled Armstrong their least favorite athlete, LeBlanc was quick to accept any report that would tarnish Armstrong's reputation even if it meant tarnishing the Tour's image in the process.

LeBlanc is not alone. Many national sports columnists have been quick to jump on the bandwagon and compare Armstrong to Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro. Forget the fact that Armstrong has never admitted under oath to administering performance-enhancing drugs to his body (Bonds), admitted to using some performance-enhancing drugs like andro (McGwire) or actually tested positive for steroids (Palmeiro). Who cares? If French newspapers can tarnish Armstrong's reputation, why can't we?

In the end, there is nothing Armstrong can do to prove he is telling the truth. He is the most tested athlete in the most stringently tested sport and he has always tested clean. During his historic streak of seven consecutive Tour de France titles (yeah, he won six times after the disputed '99 win) he has been tested more than 100 times for every drug imaginable, often without notice, like the time he was examined at Sheryl Crow's New York apartment while he was on vacation, and has never test positive for anything.

He tested clean 17 times during the '99 Tour and now must explain how six frozen secondary urine samples allegedly tested positive for EPO with no primary sample to compare the results with. Other than hopping into a time machine and being tested again, the only defense Armstrong has is his word. Unfortunately for Armstrong, that won't cut it for many people, no matter what he has accomplished on or off his bike.