This is the issue that bugs me not about just Lance but ethics in general, are we ok with people using their fame and success to do go deeds if how they achieved their fame and success was done fraudently. Kinda reminds me of the mafia, who are after all just looking after their families etc, the Colombian druglords too. Do people respect these types of people. Some clearly do.
I now regularly see this line that all other cyclists were doped like Lance so its ok. Thing is, Lance was never gonna be just another cyclist cheating to win the Tour. If it had been Tyler Hanilton that had won 7 Tours, would he have achieved the same level of fame, wealth and power that Lance did. No way. I wish people would stop making that comparison, after cancer Lance was never just gonna be another cyclist.
Lance went stratospheric after just one Tour victory, why? the cancer angle. With his backstory, Lance knew what would happen and that he would be asked lots of questions about doping. Win in a sport where everyone is doping, sure fine.
But then promoting yourself as an inspirational clean hero/symbol/crusader to the cancer community is something else altogether at least in my eyes. I think thats what annoyed a lot of people like David Walsh & the French. They knew he was blatantly cheating from the beginning and they saw him lead so many people up the garden path, they just couldnt take the duplicity.
The UCI clearly took the opposite approach, they saw a potential windfall and immediately made Lance a protected species if that story about the positive test at the 2001 Tour of Switzerland is anything to go by.
What would I have had Lance do in 99 after he won the Tour. Take the Indurain approach, steer clear of the popular media and let others look after the Cancer foundation whilst contributing a large part of his still substantial earnings. This approach might not have raised as much money for cancer but there would have been a lot more integrity to it.