We'll all be aware of the doping debacle and Lance Armstrong, particularly in light of the upcoming interview.
Armstrong has been accused of being a protagonist of doping within the sport. Clearly doping should not be tolerated.
I wonder though, did Armstrong adopt doping as as the only way to get to the top (and the real earning region) within a sport where he already knew doping was rife, or did his success create a situation where other competitors could only win if they doped, thus exacerbating the problem?
If you think about it, road racing has had to compete with lots of other sports for sponsorship, advertising etc. It (the UCI etc) needed to "build a brand". To do this it needed superstars who could be recognised the world over.
I wonder if that is the case that Armstrong will put forward in his interview?
Anyway, what are your thoughts? Which do you think came first?