So Lance doped? So everyone had to dope so that they didn't get left in the dust by the dopers? Hmmmmmm.
I am always amazed at the performance of the riders in the Tour de France. However, I think I'd be just as amazed if they were a few seconds slower due to not doping. I'd enjoy the race just as much (probably more; I'd have that warm, fuzzy feeling of knowing I was watching a bunch of non-cheaters.) The problem is that if most of them don't dope, but a few do, those few will have an unfair advantage; hence the pressure for all of them to do it.
Here's my suggestion: give Lance immunity from prosecution if he agrees to help testers redesign their tests to make it harder to get away with doping. If he doped for all those years, won the tour 7 times, and never got caught, he must have a pretty substantial amount of expertise.
Okay, I'm a little tongue-in-cheek here. I mean, it's not a bad idea, I don't think, but I'm certainly not claiming it as great. What do you other 50-plussers think?