Seeing what came down the wire just now it looks like lance is not the only doper (allegedly)
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13559903/?GT1=8393t

It’s too bad but, as you note, no surprise. As you know, I’m a huge fan of cycling, but let’s face it: the performances have been impossible and the motive behind it is literally written all over the cyclists themselves (and their bikes and everything else): advertising profits. LA deserves the accolades he’s received; we just shouldn’t make any mistake about the fact that professional bicycling is just as polluted and disgusting as investment banking in its ruthless pursuit of accumulation at any cost. LA is the greatest cyclist ever, probably in part because he’s the greatest doper ever. Yet somehow the fans don’t get it. I was at a Giants game last night, watching The Other Doper, Barry Bonds, lumber around left field. The fans cheered the homers (none by Bonds, as it happens) without any concern for which chemical compounds produced them. The spectacle of the achievement — the impossible, inhuman, deeply technologized and specialized achievement — is thrilling precisely because *none of the fans can do it themselves.* Thirty-five hours a week on the bike or twice-daily shots of hormone and blood transfusions: what’s the difference to the fans? As for complaints about the decline of some legendary sportsmanlike work-ethic (which I know you would never make), nobody can say that Armstrong, Bonds, or any of these other guys don’t work hard. What’s harder work than radically tweaking the chemical and hormonal composition of your own body (in addition to thirty-five hours a week on the bike)? The short point is that doping in cycling is symptomatic of a larger sickness. Remember what Roy Cohn says in Angels in America: Ronald Reagan — in his inhuman, impossible, artificial, and brainless eternal healthfulness — is the perfect symbol of the United States. Isn’t Lance just another Reagan in that respect — his super-fitness a terrible index of our illness and weakness?