It’s not an either/or.

It’s not Lance the saint or Armstrong the cheat. It’s one very, very driven man who will push all sorts of limits (not just his own) to emerge victorious.

In a battle with cancer, that’s a huge strength. In professional bike racing, it can take you too far.

What I dislike is the feeling that LA will become the sacrificial victim for a corrupt generation of cyclists, allowing everyone to vent their spleen on his wickedness, whilst his competitors and ex-teammates are allowed to shed crocodile tears over their own wrongdoing, simultaneously profitting from the book deals and publicity that their ‘repentance’ garners. I notice no-one is demanding an investigation into the doping levels during, say, Bernard Hinaults reign. EPO may not have been around then, but the problem with this issue is the question of where do you draw the line on the subject, when its patently obvious that doping of one sort or another has been endemic in cycling ever since if became a recognised sport.

Lance didnt start the doping habit and clearly he wasnt the last to use drugs. But he committed the cardinal sin of being the most successful of his generation, and the most determined to hold the wall of silence which was once almost universal to the peleton. This is why Merckx has come out in his support, not because he is ‘innocent’, but because he is no more guilty than the 50 years of yellow jersey holders that came before him. Just ask Anquetil…

In a nutshell, I agree with you that outing Lance Armstrong is probably a good thing, but at least admire him for sticking to his guns when a lot of those who benefitted from his success are now sharpening their daggers like Caesars cowardly killers at the ides of march.