My problem with this article and the associated accusations is that officials and journalists attached a name to their findings. Armstrong may have been on EPO in 1999 but having failed only one sample the positive is irrelevant (ask Tyler Hamilton about his Gold Medal). LA cannot be charged, disciplined or even further scrutinized by WADA in the future.

The article states that only B samples were tested for this article as the A samples had already been tested in 1999. This means that whatever results exist for the test, they are completely useless for WADA or UCI as it takes two positive samples to show anything and WADA does not have two samples from the same day's test (according to the article).

Secondly, this was part of trail for a new EPO test that is not yet approved. Using this test as proof of anything is highly problematic until the test is validated. Again, the results may be valid but it is highly irregular to publish names with such method testing.

Thirdly, why was Armstrong pointed out above the others. Six other samples tested hot and yet only LA's name was released. This indicates specific targeting by the French media or government of Armstrong. This vindictiveness is generally harmful to pro cycling.

The impropriety of releasing a single name from a test that is unproven against only B samples is irresponsible at best and libel at worst. This only hurts sports in general and cycling specifically because it is merely more accusations and not admissible proof.

This witch hunt is far more harmful to the sport (and society) than the performance enhancing drugs ever could be.