[utahagen]

The article is indeed well written, but the author mixes up a few things. I don't think drugs are per se bad and I suspect that the rules about drugs in cycling are arbitrary and stupid. However, early on, Lance Armstrong had a choice. He could have admitted years ago that he and almost every other cyclist used drugs, thereby challenging the industry to change its rules. Yes, he would have sacrificed a great deal by telling the truth, yet tell the truth is what he should have done. Instead, he strenuously denied using drugs and those lies helped propel him to international fame and fortune. Yes, his foundation has done a great deal of good, but he also has become rich. Besides, the ends don't justify the means. The rules may have been stupid, but Armstrong effectively endorsed those stupid rules when he for years swore he has adhered to them. Now that he has been exposed as a liar, his supporters point out the stupidity of the rules as a reason not to condemn Armstrong. Sorry, I am not buying it. Lance Armstrong is a great athlete, but he is a bad human being.

[Hot Tabasco]

He could have admitted years ago that he and almost every other cyclist used drugs,

Correction needed, he has never admitted to using drugs......

If you wish to examine Armstrong's record, then how many of the top 20 stage winners of the TDF (of which Armstrong was not a member of) were given the same government scrutiny?