odelltrclan wrote:Whether the argument is "he was no different than other cyclists" or, that it "happened long ago", or that "PED use should be legal anyway", whatever the case may be, these are still arguments on his behalf. This is by its very definition what an "apologist" does.
This is just logically wrong. These are NOT "arguments on his behalf"--they are arguments about the real, actual, and larger problem--of which he is but one part. The meaningful point is this: if one is genuinely serious about the real, larger issue, then one needs to look beyond the big, fat, juicy, seductive, and primarily symbolic target of Lance Armstrong.