Lance Armstrong should still be considered as more of an international hero than just a lying jerk

As you did not comment on my main argument I suppose you accept it:"Well, I suggest we actually imagine he never doped and never won all that races and never even existed. He wouldn't have been an amazing and maybe best ever inspiration to people who suffer cancer. But, more importantly (since today it's all about the money), his foundation raised more than $470 million to support the mission to inspire and empower people affected by cancer. And that's a lot of money. I am sure those people appreciate it and I think that the public image of Lance Armstrong should be more positive due to this."It is not surprising that you limit the whole story on cycling. My point is exactly that he should be viewed as humanitarian also. It still is my main argument. I wouldn't like voters to view this as pro and con-doping, cause it most certainly is not. But I will not run from your arguments.He lied, and he apologized for that, but why put the whole blame on him? Doping has become a tradition in cycling, athletics and sports in general. Lance did not fight against the culture in cycling. He simply didn't want to be the one who changes the rules of the game. Cheating, unfortunately, was and still is normal in such sports. Lance's sin is that he was the best in it at his time. What would you do, if you wanted to win at all cost?Just take a look, how long the lists are (only the ones who got caught):http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...Now, to answer yours 1, 2 and 3:He was punished for doping, unlike many others. He is still one of the best. Many cyclists agreed that it is impossible to win Tour de France without doping. And PED is very discussable as it is differently defined in various sports. Coffee and marijuana are not permitted while extra protein and vitamins (in quantities that are not possible to insert in body via natural food) are permitted. Everyone cheats, some get away with it. So, it's difficult to determine which drugs should be allowed. For example, winter Olympians often gain exercise-induced asthma due to over-training. The doctors suggest less training, but they rather take drugs. Is this unfair advantage or just medicine, which is positive?I will follow your example and include other sports in rebutting.1)"He broke the rules of his sport, which banned PEDs and blood doping." - All race walkers with no exception break the basic rule of their sport, and the winner still isn't punished.2)"We punish other athletes in other sports for the same thing" - maybe like Overeem in UFC? Doping really says more about the sport than about the athletes. 3) "His reputation is based on a lie. "-if Michael Jordan admits doping tomorrow, would he really loose whole of his reputation? I don't know, he would still be a legend to me...In this debate, it is not mine to defend Lance Armstrong's doping, but to show that he is unfairly being presented as nobody. I did this by argument of his enormous humanitarian work and showing other cases that have been treated less roughly (Overeem). I also pointed out that doping is sad reality of sport and that athletes are being confronted to moral question: dope or lose.