At this point it is pretty well proved that Lance Armstrong was not only a doper but also a ringleader. That's not really the thing that interests me. What interests me is this quote:
If all Lance Armstrong ever wanted in life was to be a winning cyclist, and he discovered that hard work was not enough as the winning cyclists were all doping, can you really blame him for becoming a doper? In other words, if competitive cycling was a contest of more than will, talent, and discipline but also involved a contest of doping, can we really castigate a cyclist and competitor for taking up the challenge? You can say he should have blown the whistle or played it straight or whatever, but the fact is everyone already knew about it and the enforcement bodies were powerless to stop it, how can anyone say at that point that Armstrong had a realistic chance to change anything. Should Armstrong have retired instead, or accepted coming in 30th in perpetuity? What are the ethics?Around this time we got crushed in the Milan-San Remo race and coming home from the race Lance Armstrong was very upset. As we drove home lance said, in substance, that, "this is bull shit, people are using stuff" and "we are getting killed." He said, in substance, that he did not want to get crushed any more and something needed to be done. I understood that he meant the team needed to get on EPO. [...]
Our performance began to improve. Lance started to do better. [X] did very well at the Vuelta a Espana. We all routinely acknowledged that the improvements came about through use of EPO. [...]