No, the vast majority of pro athletes certainly never dope, and the fact that anyone can blithely state that '99%' do is the saddest commentary why doping in sports isn't tolerable. The most compelling argument against doping is we don't want our kids doing it in high school, which is inevitable if we don't get a handle on this scourge. You can't have it. It's not acceptable. Particularly for the business of pro cycling, which has been decimated as the pool of sponsor money has gotten more and more shallow as companies fear being associated with the profoundly negative publicity doping can bring to them. That totally obviates the reason they get into the sport in the first, place, which is for positive exposure. There are no ticket sales in cycling, no massive revenue streams like they have in the NFL, MLB, Euro Football, the NBA, etc. It matters much more to pro cycling than any other sport. Top salaries in cycling are actually LOWER now than they were a few years ago as the money has dried up. It's hitting everyone who makes a living from the sport.

Doping was rampant, widespread and quite systematic in pro cycling in Lance's era. But this does not change the basic outline of his inspiring story. Not really. Still, it will be a major crash and burn, and it will suck for a lot of reasons. But ultimately if it helps clean up cycling (it can't hurt) maybe it's all for the best. I strongly feel that if you have a brain in your head and you understand the long standing realities of pro cycling, then the Lance story hasn't changed despite all this. But those two attributes aren't easy to find, particularly on BF. Characterizing the doping that's being re-hased with the Lance case (and it is massive re-hasing) as 'cheating' is simplistic in the extreme, it understates the true insidious nature of the problem, and makes it sound like if we could just get some good, clean honest guys into the sport it would all simply resolve itself. As if.