Guilty until proven innocent? How very un-American.

Back when I was 15, I vividly remember watching Greg LeMond win the Tour de France on television in 1989. Having just recovered from getting accidently shot in the back with a shotgun by his brother-in-law while on a hunting excursion, he managed to overcome a 50 second deficit in the final time trial and beat the smug Frenchman, Laurent Fignon, by 58 seconds to capture the yellow jersey. It was a pretty remarkable achievement, and his 8 second margin of victory still stands as the closest race in Tour history.

But now I really just dislike this guy. You'd think the first American champion of the Tour de France would be the first person to defend his fellow countrymen. Instead, he's been pretty vocal about his disbelief that Lance Armstrong couldn't have won all seven of his Tour de France titles without the help of performance-enhancing drugs, despite multiple court cases and years of negative drug tests that demonstrate he was clean. And now he seems to be essentially convinced that Floyd Landis is guilty, even before the "B" sample results have been revealed, even before hearing Floyd's side of the story, and even before any sort of investigation. He's never had any hard evidence to prove any of his speculation. Just seems like someone who can't stand the fact that his historical achievements have been overshadowed by a new generation of American cyclists.