No, you are wrong as usual. The Vrijman report was nothing but a whitewash that never addressed the central issue: How EPO was found in six of Armstrong's retrotested urine samples. Instead the report side stepped the issue by saying that in order to have a positive, you have to follow the a certain testing protocol. But the testing was never done for sanctioning purposes; it was done for research, so the lab did not need to follow protocol to get the data they were after. The lab stands by its findings and they have never been refuted.
In order to win the '99 Tour, Armstrong was on more dope than Timothy Leary. That is a fact and no matter how much you Armstrong homers bleat about French conspiracies, or what ever clap trap is your latest excuse, it does not change the facts.
In a court, Armstrong would be crushed with the preponderance of evidence for his doping.