…Well Hasbeen, the moral question is well raised with a scenario using the defeat of the Japanese in 1945 with the use of nuclear weapons on innocent civilians. This is the sort of moral question that should be used to address the moral dilemma of survival in times of catastrophic events.

…Should we create a catastrophic event in order to save ourselves from one? Surely that addresses the moral question more so than a bike rider taking drugs to win a few races. To me, that simply trivialises the important moral question raised by this author.

The BIG question, unanswerable of course, is did Lance's drug regime cause the cancer? Given that steroids has a direct effect on that region of our precious anatomy I don't think the cause effect link is that specious.

However Lance was a driven man, operating in supportive environment (for chemical use) and he did what he did with implicit organisational approval and direct team involvement. There were no constraints.

These individuals who abandon the 'means' argument in favour of the 'ends' are useful in extreme conflict like war but are a challenge to ordered urbane society and need to be 'outed'. The US finance sector is a recent example.

<< …he did what he did with implicit organisational approval… >>

This is surely the critical point. If the authorities allowed him to do it, either actively, or passively by way of turning a blind eye, then he should be holding onto his seven Tour de France wins.

If the authorities allowed this, then the rules were for all intents and purposes that he could do what he did, regardless of what may have been in writing in the rule book.

His whole team contributed, and did so for years. This is pretty strong evidence that they felt as though they were behaving within the bounds set by the governing authority.

Many others in the game at that time were doing something similar. It was the culture of the day!

I really can’t see how Armstrong can be condemned for his actions. It is the authorities that should be copping the flack.

The main thing is to learn from it and have the rules clearly defined and regulated in such a manner that the rules as written are exactly the same as the rules in practice.

Armstrong should be welcomed back into the fray, with apologies and acknowledgement that it wasn’t he who had particularly badly stuffed up but that it was the whole game and the management thereof that deserves the greatest level of criticism.