What it comes down to is that for the winner, whatever there was different on his car...maybe a reflective racing stripe and he was the only one who had it, was an unfair advantage to the losers.
No matter what it is, they will complain about it because they didn't win, and bottom line, they the losers are a bunch of crybabies.
The biggest crybaby of all time was old man
Ferrari. He bitched about the 427 Fords so much to the rules makers in Europe that they reduced the maximum legal racing displacement to 5 liters...and the 5 liter Fords in the Gulf's STILL KICKED his wimpy crybaby ass.
Was that all about money? Sure...on both sides...that was Henery Ford's personal money. I think he got his satisfaction though. Was it worth the money? I don't care, I enjoyed it.
Ferrari also wouldn't sell Lamborghini a car because he built tractors and that made him a pion in his eyes.
As a fan of all of this, I have nothing to say, just like with Lance and to me, this is all a bunch of very silly games played by some very rich people and I either ignore it entirely or just enjoy the scenario that all of the scandal creates.
Doesn't matter what I think or do, I am not the catalyst that creates it.
Complaining about Armstrong is just sour grapes. It's like taking away Jim Thorpes medals because he played one season of pro-ball...and that was against the rules. Certainly an "Unfair Advantage" for sure?
I suppose this is all predictable and the real danger to everyone is this blind enforcement of the rules to the letter of the law.
There is inherent danger in any of that in my eyes. I once heard a story that long ago there was this situation in Europe where one country (who shall go unnamed) made being Jewish against the rules, and told it's beaurocrats to enforce the rules they made. As a result, something like 13 million people went up in smoke.
All just depends on ones perspective about rules and enforcing them I suppose?