MarkvW said:Sports is supposed to be about playing by the rules. The rules say that when a rider is disqualified the win goes to the next place rider. That didn't happen in this case. Why didn't it happen? Because the rules don't mean anything in pro cycling. Pro cycling is a joke. Better to laugh at the circus than to take it seriously.
Floyd's ride to Morzine gave me a huge charge when it happened. Nothing is going to nullify that vicarious experience. Same with Armstrong's win on Plateau de Beilles. Now, I'm sure those rides were drug-saturated, but that present knowledge doesn't diminish the experience I had at the time of the race. It's not like I'm going to edit my memories to make them conform to some bizarre standard.
The past experiences have colored my present view of the sport, though. Now I am completely convinced that cycling is a filthy doped up circus. The "clean" riders, if there are any, are marginalized and are tasked with supporting and whitewashing the entire filthy enterprise.
I'm not going to rag on Cobblestoner for thinking Lance "won" his Tours. The sport is so messed up that it doesn't matter who wins or loses. It's just a filthy circus that's fun to watch. The only thing that matters is whether or not Kolobdnev gets his money in the end.
The problem with your analysis is that the suffering is real, though the means of velocity enhancement are not uniform in the peloton.
Doping has always been present, the real problem is when it became an arms race. That arms race is killing this sport. In this sense Armstrong has been the sport's greatest killer, for which he can hardly be claimed the winner of anything, but an assassin and a loser of astounding proportions.