Except that in this case lance was actually taking money which others were also competing for.

If Lance had stolen his own money (?) or had somehow ripped off his team ... but in this case Lance was taking money from sponsors under the guise of a clean rider (which is why he has to give it back) and also taking money form otehr riders ... the fact that they were also doping only means that there was a criminal conspiracy to defraud clean riders.

Sorry, but that analogy doesn't hold up. Lance was profiting in a zero-sum game --- it was not a victimless crime. And the things he did to intentionally and successfully ruin the careers of those who threatened him, or whom he perceived as threatening, were also not victimless crimes.

if your coke-crazed housekeeper started selling your stuff o pay for your habit ..... or started stealing from your house guests ... we;d'd have a better analogy.

Whatever. if people find it convenient to defend criminals, that's their option. Sort of like how organized crime figures are romanticized ... or bank robbers used to be. Sure, the money is insured, and the robbers are just "getting even with the Man" ... but the bank guards who was barley feeding his kids on his meager salary and got killed in the line of duty ... he and his wife and kids get forgotten.

Defend cheating if you like cheating. or if it preserves your narrative, or for whatever reason.

Then explain to the people Lance savaged and ruined, how he is really a hero because he cheated better.