I am the county being heard from here. ;-)

I've been an enthusiastic and dedicated cyclist since 1992, here in the U.S., where I am a proud and patriotic military veteran.

For my money, and your mileage may vary, Armstrong is most likely guilty of doping. The accusations against Armstrong have been too detailed, originated from people too close to Armstrong at the time of the alleged occurrences, and the accusers have had too little to gain by going publoic, for me to doubt their truth. Or that at least some of them are true. Also, the accusations have mostly been consistent with other facts, been internally consistent, and generally been credible in manner and details.

Those who defend Armstrong leave me unconvinced when they echo his own assertion that accusers are trying to gain fame for themselves by attacking whoever is on top of the profession at the time. He says it is a natural consequence of being on top. But we haven't been seeing this in other sports, and Armstrong ignores saying anything about why cycling should be uniquely victim to such a phenomenon.

In more recent years, it has become widely admitted -- without names being named -- that probably two-thirds of the professional peloton were doping during the approximately two decades when Armstrong had his career. It is difficult to imagine that someone could win the Tour de France seven times during the peak of the doping era and not have themselves been doping. And some of those who were there at the time have been the most credible accusers, as it happens.

Some fellow Americans have felt that we prefer to fight fair in competition and no American athlete in such prominent display would ever do such a thing. The shockingly foolish and crooked attempt by Floyd Landis to get away with doping during the Tour de France was followed by Landis' disgusting, take-no-prisoners, catch-me-if-you-can, thoroughly mendacious, attempt to cover it up and get away with it. Proving that even so recently, American cyclists have been more than capable of cheating and more. Nor was he the only prominent American cyclist to be caught red handed.

Some, including Armstrong himself for most of the years in question, accuse the French and/or the French press of being on a vendetta against Armstrong. There was a seed of truth to that, but only a seed. If anything, press leaks about Armstrong's lab results served to undermine any campaign against Armstrong, not strengthen it. Late in this whole affair, Armstrong tried to learn enough French to be able to give interviews in the French press and otherwise represent himself effectively in the language of the country that hosted most of his success. Doing that apparently extinguished at least 95% of any open hostility towards Armstrong in the French press. I think the term is "r'approchement"? At any rate, there were no Frenchpersons claiming to have been present when he doped or helped him to dope or so on. Those accusers were Americans. Which makes it rather difficult to blame the French. The French press had been often eager to give too much play to reports and rumors, until Armstrong launched his "charm offensive" and learned their language. I imagine our press here would be similarly aggressive if some Frenchman who doesn't speak English suddenly became the best pitcher and hitter in Major League Baseball.

I follow with a very bemused eye the return of Vinokourov from his suspension for flagrant (and extremely foolish) doping. He seems to be leading an exemplary competitive cycling life now. I even find myself rooting for him fairly often, which was unimaginable not very long ago. I pray it is not misguided to believe he is reformed.

What bothers me most about accusations about Armstrong and doping is that it keeps making it ever harder for a person to believe that George Hincapie was not also doing it at the same time. Which has been included in some of the allegations. If doping by anyone had never existed, then Hincapie's reputation as the greatest superdomestique of all time is assured. Who knows what sort of star he would have been if he had been brought up as a team leader? His modesty and diplomacy are also exemplary, and we are told that he is one of the very most popular and respected riders in the professional peloton for many years now. (Hats off also to the great Jens Voigt and the great Fabian "Spartacus" Cancellara.)

Greatest professional cyclist so far in the 21st century? Hard to say. But it is not Lance Armstrong, in my humble and ignorant opinion. Those who sincerely compare him to Merckx or even Coppi or Bindi do a disservice those three greats. I'd like to point out that even Pantani (RIP) can point to being perhaps the last man ever to win both the Giro and the Tour de France in the same year. Of course, Pantani's own history with drugs is extremely problematical. I suspect he was far more guilty of recreational drug abuse that probably hurt his performance rather than whatever guilt he may or may not have had with doping. I am very generous with my favor and have a very long list of riders who are my favorites, from many countries, including the U.S.A. Lance Armstrong has never been one of them, although I do think he has done things and has exhibited traits that I greatly respect and even admire. Guilt or innocence aside, his dedication and training, and his influence on the sport, are undeniable.