Exactly. When the drug problems in cycling came to light - it was just one after another. If you wanted to make a joke about PED - it was invariably cycling. You had to laugh (or cry) as rider after rider was exposed everty TDF. The general feeling was they are all at it. Most important was how it was exposed that It was systematic in the teams. And I don't believe anyone was robbed of anything because they just all seemed at it. There was no indignation about someone on PEDs. Just indignation from the teams about getting caught and in later years the fake leaving the rider on his own with a "We knew nothing about this - he's fired now".
And as a result - whatever they do to Lance Armstrong. Stripping him of his TDF titles - whatever that even means - I will always regard him as one of the greatest cyclists along with Indurain and the other multi TDF winners who I believe were all on PEDs.
Cycling and other sports are different in this regard.
Indurain and Bjarne Riis won their TdF victories before the UCI limited the legal hematorcrit level to 50. Hematocrit level is volume of red blood cells in the blood and is normally around 40% for women, 45% for men.
Bjarne Riis was called 'Magic 60' for a reason
Indurain was another extreme case. His resting pulse was sub 30 bpm. Naturally part of this being his physical shape. Another being his blood was so thick, it slowed his heart rate. It's sort of common knowledge, Indurain, during nights, had to get up with few hours intervals to exercise. If he didn't, he would simply die
Your argument is : Others did the same, so it was a level playing field, why these are great champions. NO, imho. They won, because they were willing to take the biggest risks (pump their blood up to be as thick as possibly, but still just barely flowing).
Needless to say, I don't know the reason for USADA to go after Armstrong but his 'whiter than white' attitude, when others were caught alone, could be enough reason to take him down. Armstrong is, imho, the sport version of Bernie Madoff.