I hate to take sides on this and truly have no strong feeling either way but my observations are these.
The guy showed promise before PEDs were such game changers.
He made the conscientious decision to put his health and career at risk by using PEDs. He cheated along with so many other top performers. He did it within the framework of what the governing body of the sport could detect and or find him in non compliance. The guy came back from Cancer and STILL kicked the asses of healthy fellow cheaters. He was possibly the most scrutinized/drug tested athlete by sanctioning bodies looking to take him down yet could not find conclusive damning evidence. The guy is a competitor to such a degree that he did not like or allow others to try to besmirch, tarnish or take away his accomplishments no matter what the human cost.
Does one call him the ultimate competitor with a warrior mentality?, does he have sociopathic tendencies with no capacity to feel empathy or guilt? In the end, does the whole discussion even merit all the attention and resources the situation has expended.
How could you take away wins and medals when he passed the existing testing in place at the time of the competition while knowing his fellow competitors also used PEDs at the same time.
In analogy, in car racing for example. Should they take away previous wins and earnings when the chief mechanic tried something not covered in the rule books or passed post race inspection? The saying is, "if you ain't cheating, you ain't trying" rings true. Everone everywhere wants to get an"advantage" whether it is stickier tires, better technology, creative thinking, improved training, or through better chemistry which is the case here.
I do not take into account all the millions he raised for cancer, all the people he got off their asses and into healthier lifestyles or all the people he tried to trash their names and lives. I don't see how one can make them all one argument.
Anyhow, that's what I see, not what I feel or want to believe.
unk:
