The rules dont say "dont dope unless you are an established philanthropist" - they say dont dope, period. If you are trying to clean up the sport, you need to make it clear no one is above the rules. If people think it isnt worth dragging St Lance through the mud, then ALL dopers need to have their sentences rescinded and wins restored. The standards should apply evenly to everyone. Period.

Otherwise, where do you draw the line? Like I said earlier, do you exempt someone from doping b/c he only inspired a few thousand people, not a few million? How about a few hundred? How about 10? What if he was merely very nice to his neighbors? What's the cut-off? Who decides it?

I know this - the other cyclists who lost their career, livelihood and a chance to participate in the sport they love b/c of a prevalent doping culture DESERVE that even the sport's titans be judged by the same standards. Period.

As for Livestrong - here's my personal take on it. I am not a big Lance fan, but I am not a hater either. However, Lance's PR machine and ghost-writers have made Lance out to be some sort of an ultimate "mind over matter" type of hero - using those TdF wins as proof of his willpower. If he has doped, then it turns out that while he is still a TdF winner who won on a level playing field, his achievements are relatively more mundane than anything else: heck, in a few more years, Contador will likely have more GT wins than any other rider.

I dunno about you, but if I am going to look up to someone and use them as inspiration, I'd rather it be someone I can admire. A person who lies about his achievements in order to build himself up as someone to be admired doesnt fit the bill. YMMV.

But this neither here nor there - we all will parse this differently. The point is, subjective feelings of the fans should NOT affect how rules are interpreted.