Pure, unmitigated bullshit. &#x27;Everyone knew it&#x27; is the first defense of a cheater (and of quite a few criminals) but rather than being a true defense that&#x27;s just an admission of participation in a systematic fraud. There only needs to be one cyclist (in this context) who is racing without doping in accordance with the rules to invalidate your entire thesis; the reality is that people are invited to view and participate in an athletic competition, and that insofar as it <i>is</i> a doping game once you get inside professional cycling, everyone else should be getting prosecuted for perpetuating a fraud upon the public, as Adam Smith recognized centuries ago in <i>The Wealth of Nations</i> when advising governments to be wary of trusting industry associations: &#x27;People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.&#x27;<p><i>Regardless of what anyone thinks of Lance Armstrong, you have to hand it to the guy. He certainly made the most out of his cheating win streak through one of the greatest charities of all time. Cheating in sports is one thing. His true legacy was doing whatever he could to help others cheat death as he did.</i><p>Or so he says. Of course it&#x27;s rather difficult to assess the opportunity cost here, since sports-affiliated charities engaged in medical research are now inevitably tainted by association. A look at the Livestrong Foundation&#x27;s Form 990 suggests the organization spent almost as much on compensating its executive staff and lobbyists as it did on grant issuance, and the amount it has disbursed, while substantial (at least $100m over its lifetime, I estimate) is not so large in absolute terms, such that I question your accolade of &#x27;one of the greatest charities of all time.&#x27;<p>I don&#x27;t have anything for or against Lance Armstrong; I am not very interested in cycling, and I don&#x27;t think doping in sport represents some sort of moral nadir, but is merely shabby. But I have a big problem with your uncritical acceptance of the fact that because &#x27;everyone knows&#x27; there&#x27;s an inner game that has little to do with the outer game - a phenomenon which seems to exist in almost every sphere of life - that that&#x27;s OK. It&#x27;s fraud perpetuated on the general public, which is educated to both respect and fear the moral code of self-restraint inherent in the social contract, and which (importantly) is the most effective governor of interpersonal relations at the individual level. Even many animals have standards of fairness, and to actively undermine those in an organized fashion is, well, cancerous to civilization and our collective wellbeing. Paradoxically, I&#x27;ve become rather fond of &#x27;pharmabro&#x27; Martin Shkreli because while he operated his businesses in extremely anti-social fashion, he is pretty up-front about about the fact that he is doing so for pure economic advantage, in contrast to the blatant hypocrisy of all the other people doing likewise while striking postures of humility.