As a cycling fan (probably more a Tour de France fan - I follow some of the other major races, but nowhere near as closely), the latest allegations regarding Lance Armstrong and doping give me room to pause.

But only a little.

In case you've missed it, here's the skinny - the French sports newspaper L'Equipe ran an article earlier this week claiming that urine samples belonging to Armstrong - backup samples taken in 1999 - tested positive for EPO, a banned substance. They did not test positive back then because there was no test for EPO, and they only tested positive now because the lab that had them was using these old samples to perfect current tests.

These samples are anonymous, but the paper managed to link them to Armstrong through some paperwork that connected him with the sample numbers. It's not enough to sanction Armstrong - he'd need positive results from tests on primary samples, which are long gone - but it was proof enough for the paper.

These are probably the most serious allegations of the many levelled at Armstrong regarding doping. Lance, of course, continues to deny that he ever doped and thinks that there's some sort of conspiracy out to get him.

As much as this sounds like he's asking to get fitted for a tinfoil hat, he may have a point.

Consider that the parent company for the newspaper also owns the company that runs the Tour. Which means that when the tour director accepted the story as proving Armstrong's doping, he wasn't just stating opinion. He was toeing the company line.

Consider also that Armstrong has admitted using EPO - not while competing, but while fighting cancer. He's more or less said that EPO kept him alive during treatment. The more cynical might figure that Lance, seeing the benefits of EPO, didn't quite abandon it once he was all better.

Perhaps the biggest thing to consider is that a Frenchman hasn't won the Tour since 1985. Americans have won fully half of the Tours in that span. Riders from Denmark and Ireland (!) have won the Tour in the time since Bernard Hinault took the top step of the podium in 1985.

(Speaking of the podium, a Frenchman hasn't been present on one since 1997.)

This year was an even bigger famine for the French, as they won only one stage - the one on Bastille Day, when the French riders ride a little harder and the other riders let them (as long as it doesn't upset the leaders). If Bastille Day was in, say, October, the French may not have even taken a stage win.

(And, just in case you were wondering, the French were also shut out in the sprint, climbing, and young rider competitions, which were won by guys from Norway, Denmark, and the Ukraine.)

A generation of building futility in a race you pretty much invented will make people mad. They'll look for someone to take it out on.

Enter Lance Armstrong.

I suppose it all boils down to what you think deserves more consideration - the piles of circumstantial evidence tying Armstrong to doping, or the rabid machinations of the press (French and others) who have been gunning for Armstrong since his first Tour win. I can't say I fully trust Armstrong, but I have very little faith in the restraint and ethics of Europe's sports journalists. So I'm sticking with Armstrong - for now.