We all want to believe Lance Armstrong, don't we?

We all want him to be what he seems to be _ a remarkable champion. And what he says he is _ a clean champion.

But, then, we read and hear reports from a French newspaper about test results from some lab in Paris that kept Armstrong's frozen urine samples in Pepe Le Pew's freezer over the past six years, taken during the 1999 Tour de France, revealing that, yes, he used a banned blood booster in his first Tour victory.

EPO supposedly showed up in those six samples.

Sacre bleu!

What are we supposed to think now?

Some _ especially Americans _ automatically dismiss the reports that initially were published in L'Equipe, saying the sports newspaper is "out to get" Armstrong because _ pick your reason _ 1) the French are angry at the American racer because he dominated their top event for so long; 2) he is an infidel, coming from the States and all; 3) he couldn't have been as good as he seemed without cheating.

Others, such as the director of the Tour de France, believe the report has merit and that Armstrong owes the cycling world an explanation.

Armstrong does not believe this.

He responds by lashing out at the report, calling into question the lab's credibility and the publication's motives.

"There's a setup here and I'm stuck in the middle of it," he says. "I absolutely do not trust that laboratory."

Next thing, he appears on Larry King's TV show to make his case.

"A guy in a Parisian laboratory opens up your sample," he says, "you know, Jean Francois So-And-So, and he tests it _ nobody's there to observe, no protocol was followed _ and then you get a call from a newspaper that says, 'We found you to be positive six times for EPO.' Well, since when did newspapers start governing sports?"