Our earlier post on Mr. Armstrong was contested by some French correspondents. They contend that the stubborn French fascination with disproved smears and baseless rumors claiming Mr. Armstrong doped his way to victories represent a "legitimate interest". This is to say giving credence to libels and fabulous suppositions at odds with all the established facts is what passes for "legitimate interest" in France.

We maintain that our earlier post nailed it correctly. The French are bad losers, poor sports, and boorish hosts.

The sports daily L'Equipe and tour director Jean-Marie Leblanc have conveniently stepped forward to illustrate all three of our propositions.

ARMSTRONG DANS LA TOURMENTE
[ARMSTRONG IN THE STORM]

August 23, 2005 (L'Equipe) - Thunder clap. One month after this summer's seventh TDF victory, Lance Armstrong, young retiree, revisits the scene. But this time it's a question of doping. Six of his urinary samples, collected at the time of the 1999 Tour and analyzed a posteriori by the Châtenay-Malabry laboratory, are marked with signature EPO. In its edition of Thursday August 23 [sic], L'Equipe provides the proof.

That L'Equipe can't manage to correctly report the date of its edition [Dans son édition du jeudi 23 août] gives one pause about the rigor of its exposé.

J.-M. LEBLANC CHOQUÉ ET TRAHI
[J.-M. LEBLANC SHOCKED AND BETRAYED]

August 23, 2005 (L'Equipe) - Jean-Marie Leblanc, director of the Turn of France, is shocked, even "morally betrayed by 1999" after learning of the doping charges against the American Lance Armstrong, sullying his first victory in la Grande Boucle [scil., the Tour de France or TDF].

How is the Tour affected?
The Tour is shocked. One could not expect it even if the personality of Lance Armstrong were controversial, prone to a certain suspicion despite the admiration it caused. For my part I wavered between admiration and prudence because of the news reports, of the lawsuits in progress. One can say that it didn't make for seven tranquil years on the cycling course... As of the first year, in 1999, there was suspicion.

Are the other victories of Armstrong also suspect?
They can be suspect of taint. But I do not want to go too quickly.

That is very delicate of M. Leblanc. But of course M. Leblanc and the many French Armstrong calumniators know they only need 1999 to be tainted to undo all of Mr. Armstrong's accomplishments. So what of the damning proof?

ARMSTRONG RESPONDS TO CHEAT CLAIMS

CHICAGO August 25, 2005 (AP) - [M. Leblanc] said L'Equipe's report that six urine samples Armstrong provided during his first tour win in 1999 tested positive for the red blood cell-booster EPO had convinced him the cyclist had cheated.

"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."

M. Leblanc asks you to believe that Mr. Armstrong, "the most tested athlete in the world", after seven years of dominating the TDF, of being under its supervision and the microscopes of the press, is only now being caught out. Are M. Leblanc, the TDF officials, the French press, and French cycling fans the stupidest people on earth or the most gullible or the most displacent or some disasterous mix of these? M. Leblanc fully illustrates the former.

"Where to start?" Armstrong mused during a conference call from Washington. ... He went on to criticize L'Equipe and question the science and ethics of the suburban Paris laboratory that stored frozen samples from the 1999 tour, tested them only last year and leaked the results used in the newspaper's report.

But in one sense, Armstrong felt [fooled also], saying he talked to Leblanc on the telephone after the tour director spoke to L'Equipe, but before those remarks were published.

"I actually spoke to him for about 30 minutes and he didn't say any of that stuff to me personally," Armstrong said.

"But to say that I've 'fooled' the fans is preposterous. I've been doing this a long time. We have not just one year of only 'B' samples; we have seven years of 'A' and 'B' samples. They've all been negative."

In his autobiography, "It's Not About the Bike," he said he was administered EPO during his chemotherapy treatment to battle cancer.

Armstrong questioned the validity of testing samples frozen six years ago, how those samples were handled since, and how he could be expected to defend himself when the only confirming evidence -- the 'A' sample used for the 1999 tests -- no longer existed.

He also charged officials at the suburban Paris lab with violating World Anti-Doping Agency code for failing to safeguard the anonymity of any remaining 'B' samples it had.

Were Mr. Armstrong found to be lying about doping during the TDF, well, that would be news. That the French press lavishly reports endless doping claims against Mr. Armstrong, well, that's not news at all.

And this:

The Tour did not respond Wednesday to a request by The Associated Press to interview Leblanc.

L'Equipe, linked to the Tour de France through its parent company, has often raised questions about Armstrong and doping. On Tuesday, the banner headline of its four-page report was "The Armstrong Lie."

During J.M. Barrie's 1904 stage play Peter Pan audiences clapped Tinker Bell back to life. But it was only make-believe. In France a nation vainly wishes Mr. Armstrong's ruin into being. But it is only make-believe.

PFFT (What is this?): Self-pronounced ineptitude 5 | Shock 0 | Secret glee 5 | Rayonnement français 0

I've just debated the subject to death on another (and more balanced) UK blog, but let me make a few points:

- in 1998, Richard Virenque, a top French rider, was banned 9 months for steroids in effect ruining his career. Apparently, "the French" loathe French riders too.

- US rider Tyler Hamilton is still under investigation after a dope raid by Spanish authorities. I have little doubt French secret services are behind this.

- Raymondas Rumsas, a Lithuanian, was stripped of his 3rd place Tour medal for numerous drug charges. Not a surprise here, everyone knows "the French" are virulantly "anti-Lithuanian".

And I could go on and on. As if doping in the Tour was new. I find it laughable that after near-strikes and complaints on the last Tour from riders from all over the world regarding draconian testing from "the French", we should only feel sorry for poor Lance Armstrong (and we know American athletes are unanimously drug-free, unlike the rest of the world). Having said that, I've always personally beleived and liked the man, but the evidence is pretty damning. Hopefully he'll sue and win?

claiming Mr. Armstrong doped his way to victories represent a "legitimate interest".

A rather muddy piece of editing. I said that "anti-Lance" yahoos as well as regular sport fans bought the book out of a legitimate interest, not necessarly out of "anti-Armstrong" sentiments as you absurdly imply, but it's your job.

By the way, have you even read his Irish masseuse declarations among other professionals close to him (none of them French except the author)? Maybe Lance is surrounded by pathological liars, who knows?

I have included a link to this post in my Weekly Blogscan on BlogCritics.org (this week titled "Lance Armstrong, Icon").

To read the article with your citation, go to blogcritics.org (no www) and append the following line to complete the URL:
/archives/2005/08/26/165824.php

M. Zmx,

You maintain that Carine makes for a “terrible prosecutor.” Let’s see how you rate as a defense counsel.

Last things first, regarding L.A. Confidentiel here is what you said:

Yes, some may be Armstrong-bashers, but some may have bought the book out of sheer curiosity, a "legitimate interest".

It is not so much our editing that is faulty but your loose declarative style.

This statement begins by conceding our main point outright, though you try to hide it behind an indefinite pronoun. Earlier in your post you identify the book with celebrity smearing, another concession.

People bought the book the same way people like to pay for celebrity smearing...

Here is all we have asserted: Publishing houses are in the business of selling books. L.A. Confidentiel was a bestseller in France. It was not published in America nor could an English translation be found on the Amazon sites or in various Google searches. The book and its Armstrong doping fairy tale remains, as we originally maintained, a French predilection.

Now on to your most recent arguments.

Your first exhibit is the 1998 suspension of Richard "à l'insu de mon plein gré" Virenque, a Frenchman, for doping. You suggest the prosecution of M. Virenque, who faced with damning evidence eventually admitted to doping, is somehow equivalent to the calumniation of Mr. Armstrong, who faced with smears and hearsay has steadfastly denied doping. As for the related suspension ruining M. Virenque’s career, well, the ruination took its time. Following his suspension, with the exception of the édition 88eme, M. Virenque competed in every TDF up until his retirement last year, ending with a record 7th maillot à pois rouges.

Exhibit two is the case of Tyler Hamilton, an American. In 2005 the American Arbitration Association and the North American Court of Arbitration for Sport found Mr. Hamilton guilty of blood doping. The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency banned Mr. Tyler from sport cycling for two years. Beyond introducing Mr. Hamilton to announce your vague hunch that the DGSE was involved in the Spanish indictment, any larger purpose this exhibit serves is lost on us. Hunches are not admissible evidence.

Finally, exhibit three is the case of Raimondas Rumsas, a Lithuanian. During the 2002 TDF, his wife was discovered in possession of performance dope and doping paraphernalia. France issued an international arrest warrant for Mr. Rumsas, though his TDF tests all were negative. He refuses to travel to France for fear of being arrested. In 2003 Mr. Rumsas tested positive for the endurance enhancer EPO in the Giro d'Italia.

We take you at your word that Mr. Rumsas’ indictment is evidence "’the French’ are virulently ‘anti-Lithuanian’". The French are widely reputed to hold the less-than-French in contempt. What any of this has to do with Mr. Armstrong, who has not been found with dope paraphernalia, has not been indicted for doping, and who openly and frequently travels to France, is, again lost to us.

M. Zmx, your apples-and-oranges defense would get you disbarred stateside. This may be how you argue cases in France -- with irrelevancies, equivalence, hearsay, and hunches – but here at Pave we argue from the facts as we find them. Where are your facts, M. Zmx? You offer little to disprove our contentions that the French are bad losers, poor sports, and boorish hosts.

Perhaps you do better at those “balanced Web sites“ because shooting the breeze is not as intellectually demanding as hard argument.

Regards,
DGB

Where are your facts, M. Zmx? You offer little to disprove our contentions that the French are bad losers, poor sports, and boorish hosts.

And what is the basis of your own "facts", Damian? Your lenghty arguments absolutely do not refute the fact that Lance Armstrong is not the only top athlete suspected of doping during the Tour. Had Armstong been Welsh, you would not have given a damn, but by God, Americans MUST be held above any suspicion! You regurgitate my points without making any convincing counter-arguments except for the brilliant conclusion that "the French" are "widely reputed to hold anyone non-French in contempt".

Weak and certainly not admissible as evidence, especially from a self-confessed bigoted website.

Let's try a little cross-examination:

Bad losers: Was any French cyclist in a position to directly challenge Armstrong? How can one be a "bad loser" without being a contender in the first place? Who gains from this?

Poor sports: Have you ever been to a sport event in France (Track & Field, Tennis...) with American athletes present? Have you ever been at a Tour De France étape? Do you read L'Equipe, other than what you feel compeled to read?

Boorish hosts:

(clears throat and reads aloud)

But despite Franco-American tensions over the Iraq war, there was no animosity whatsoever from the crowds this year, and fans seemed won over by Armstrong's struggling and suffering in this year's race.

The American, who made himself available to sign autographs and always spoke a few words on French television at the end of stages, said he had felt the difference.

"There were a lot of American flags this year," he said. "They scream and it's a French person - Allez Lance! It's a little bit strange, but it happened many times."

www.tdfblog.com (2005)

I rest my case.