My 2 cents:
I can see both sides to this matter. On one side I can see that Landis is ****** at "the process" and all the procedural (sp?) problems that he along with his lawyers found. Any lab needs to be dead on when doing any kind of lab tests to maintain their integrity and their name whether it's some joe shmoe off the streets or the greatest rider ever (insert favorite rider here). My opinion in this school of thought: Landis 1 vs. Lab 0
That being said, it should come down to procedural problems in a lab to determine the results of this. Granted they COULD POSSIBLY have mixed up the samples, but I think that is HIGHLY unlikly in any lab of this caliber. I can see his side in this, but I can also see the side of the lab in that if it was doped, it was doped and there is nothing they can do to hide that fact whether ID numbers were mixed up or someone wore gloves or didn't wear gloves. Landis 0 vs. lab 0
I do think that there is some degree of favoritism/hatred (depends on which side you're on). Personally I am not one for the French, but I will watch the Tour since it is the biggest cycling event. I think that the samples should be sent to a totally NEUTRAL lab...maybe that is in Africa or Antartica...it's hard to find somewhere in the world that cycling hasn't reached..especailly in a lab that does this kind of testing.
On the fact that doping is out there...I'm sure it is. I work in the collegiate athletic setting in the US. There are always new suplements coming out that try to get by the NCAA's (national collegiate athletic association) banned substance list. It's an on going thing. Most of the time, if it enhances your performance, it's a matter of time before it's banned. There's that interim time between when it comes out and when it's banned that they are allowed to use it. Face it, performance enhancing substances are out there in pretty much every sport around the world. SOme peopel agree some people don't. Maybe I just opened another can of worms, but that is my input on this.