[DB]

"If multiple other laboratories confirm the evidence of chemical, fine. If they don't, fine. But the absolutely critical thing for the French, for us all, is that we as public people and as private people insist that objective truth, supported by evidences, be our requirement in all things wherein we pass judgment."

I strongly object.

The "evidence" has been in French custody for six years where it is totally unknown who had access to it or how it was secured for all that time. Anyone could have tainted the blood knowing it was going to be tested including the lab technicians. Take note that many of the numbered samples tested positive for EPO. The odds hitting Lance's were high.

Since there is not independent samples that were securely held by a neutral party it is now impossible to determine much of anything now.

Also note that his blood was tested for all the years in between, where he still won, and there were no positive results. So there is hard proof he didn't need EPO to win - win consistently. Then it becomes, what's the point of him using EPO?

All the evidence points towards the French. That the French manufactured this event.

[smoothsailing]

I missed that at first,and just now read the article again.

It is odd that the author,who obviously see's the French as snobbish and unreliable,would think the samples could be accepted if only blind tested by nuetral labs.

I agree with you,that's a tremendous flaw in the authors argument.Thanks for pointing it out!