Since this Tour de France win in 1999, Lance Armstrong has become a larger-than-life folk hero. Tom Able-Green/Getty Images

1) A French newspaper says Lance Armstrong used performance-enhancing EPO in 1999, during the first of his seven Tour de France victories. Should we believe this or should we ignore this?

Not just any French newspaper, but L`Equipe, the respected daily sports newspaper and sports magazine. L'Equipe reported in its Tuesday edition that it had obtained copies of six medical documents from the '99 Tour that showed an unnamed Tour rider had tested positive for red blood cell-boosting EPO, a popular drug among endurance athletes (runners, cyclists) until a test for detecting the substance was developed in 2001. The paper said the samples were Armstrong's and that they had been preserved and tested last year.

The report should be neither believed nor ignored. It should not be accepted outright because L'Equipe has not provided first-hand evidence that the samples are Armstrong's. The laboratory that performed the test has not verified that the samples were Armstrong's. It should not be ignored because, despite Armstrong's profile and popularity, it would be naïve -- in any high level sport in '05 -- to dismiss the possibility that a successful athlete used performance-enhancing substances. Fans should be relentlessly skeptical, and the larger the performance, the more skeptical they should be. Armstrong, who has been the subject of numerous allegations of doping, has always denied using them, and repeated that denial Tuesday on his website.

2) Will the report seriously damage Armstrong's credibility?

Not likely. There is little doubt that sports fans are living through an era of unprecedented doping exposure, largely the result of the now-finished BALCO case. Much of what was once behind a curtain is now very much out in the open. Baseball has been dragged through an embarrassing spectacle in front of Congress and implemented an embarrassingly weak steroid policy. Fans are asked every day to solve a moral dilemma: How to feel about the athletes who are accused, or who test positive.

The range of reactions has been fascinating. Track star Marion Jones, who was implicated in the BALCO scandal but never tested positive, has been literally shunned within her own sport. Meet promoters in Europe banded together and agreed not to invite her (or any other BALCO-connected runners) to their competitions. Yet Rafael Palmeiro tested positive for a banned steroid and some writers said that they would still elect him to the Hall of Fame. (This is not to say that Palmeiro has not suffered significant public humiliation; he has).

The most significant test case had been Barry Bonds, frequently implicated in BALCO-related steroid talk, but ever-denying. Armstrong is a more fascinating case, because he is far more than just a star athlete. He is a source of hope and belief for millions (count the yellow wristbands) of cancer survivors and patients. Through his victories in le Tour, through the publication of two bestselling books, through the yellow bracelets, Armstrong has grown into a larger-than-life folk hero in the U.S.A. He is nearly bulletproof against any allegations of doping, short of an admission on his part. I don't think any media investigation can damage the Legend of Lance in this country.

Personally, I will apply the same standard to his feats as to those of any other outsized performer: Skeptical admiration.