Why Do You Think They Call It Doping?

I've written about Lance Armstrong here before. It's been a while, but he's back in the news. There are plenty of reports, some from established pillars of journalistic integrity as "Sixty Minutes," suggesting that all of those cycling victories were aided by chemicals. Winner of the Tour de France a record seven times, some of his teammates would now like to "come clean." They say that Lance was taking PEDs and EPO. That would be "performance enhancing drugs," and Erythropoietin for those of you unfamiliar with your performance enhancers.
The first thing that springs to mind is this: If he did inject himself with any stimulants, depressants, thinners or coagulants, it would have been on top of the drugs that he took when he was diagnosed with cancer, but still managed to come back and compete in the most grueling sports contest on the planet. If that sounds like I'm defending Lance, it could be that. Or it could be that I would be glad to simply have an answer to the question once and for all. Or not.
Barry Bonds has been rattling around courthouses almost as long as he has locker rooms. When it comes right down to it, we really don't want to have our heroes dethroned. As soon as we get them down on the ground with us, we start looking for someone at which we can rail.
I would love to believe that exposing Lance Armstrong will be the beginning of a new trend of drug-free sportsmanship. Just say no to PEDs, kids. Hitting a slow groudner up the right field line is every bit as honorable as knocking the cover off the ball. Winning the Tour de France once is a great accomplishment. After all who's keeping score?
We are. That's why I'm just a tad cynical about this whole enterprise.