You know all this justification crap makes me angrier than a meat ant whose nest has been jumped on by a naughty schoolboy.
Why do people insist on defending doping by saying other people doped?
Do we do that for any other type of crime? Do we do that for any socially unacceptable behaviour? Do we say to our kids 'it's okay to call your teacher/mother/father/strangers names if other kids are doing it too?
i'm not defending anything, i just expect the 'level playing field' for all the cheaters. and i hate hypocrisy that hangs one man while lets the other one free for the very same misconduct. with Armstrong's case many people behave and speak like they've just discovered doping exists. it just creates a false and potentially dangerous image of cycling. false, because we all know Lance's just a cog (though a big one) in the drivetrain. dangerous, because many people will think bringing Lance down ends the doping saga in pro peloton.
officials IMO have two seemingly good options - they either introduce some kind of abolition, draw a thick line between now and then, or chase them all, investigate and prosecute all suspicious cases and figures, and exclude all the new-born clean cyclists like Millar from cycling. every path somewhere 'between' means businness as usual, but with slightly different names involved