I posed the Armstrong question to a colleague yesterday, just to pick his brain on the subject, and he bounced back an interesting take: 20 years from now, won't our moral outrage over performance-enhancing drugs seem somewhat silly? The dirty secret about cycling is that practically everyone is on something. The most laughable aspect of the Tour de France in 2006, when American Floyd Landis was stripped of his title, was that the trophy was awarded to Óscar Pereiro. Two of Pereiro's urine samples from that same race later tested positive for the drug Salbutamol, which is used to treat asthma. France's anti-doping officials decided Pereiro provided sufficient justification claiming the drug had been prescribed for legitimate reasons, but you can see why it's absurd the way some allegations disappear while others are doggedly pursued, and why it all might feel like a complete farce to someone like Armstrong.