Get involved: send your pictures, video, news and views by texting PKNEWS to 80360
The Captain: More drugs. . .
Lance Armstrong is the embodiment of all that is wrong with modern sport - that much we know.
His sustained use of drugs banned in sport, and his disregard for the doping laws in cycling will surely see him lose his reported $100 million fortune, as a host of angry creditors form a barely-orderly queue for their pound of Texan flesh.
There is no safe haven for Armstrong; nowhere to run. Quite simply he has said and done too much to expect any understanding or sympathy.
Various sources close to the cyclist over the years have painted a picture of a man who would belittle and bully others for his own gain; a man whose commitment to maximising his potential as an athlete through illegal means was, in the most perverse way imaginable, impressive.
But when the dust settles and he is yesterday's news, Armstrong may feel slightly aggrieved that it was he who bore the brunt of the public backlash against the use of drugs in sport.
"After all," he might whine, "I was just the tip of the iceberg."
And he's right. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that the lesser-known drug-related issues orbiting planet Armstrong are arguably more interesting. Why, you ask?
Well, because the rules regarding performance enhancing drugs remain confusing, and in some cases contradictory. As a result, we face a looming crisis across the sporting world.
Take for instance our acclaimed team of medallists at the 2012 Olympic Games. Of the many athletes that took to the podium, choking back the tears to the sound of our national anthem, I would hazard a guess that all of them had taken a supplement of some form or other during their training regimes.
Mo Farah, for example, spoke of his traditional pre-race ritual of guzzling espressos to help boost his energy levels. And why not? Caffeine has a host of benefits for long distance runners, not least of all its ability to reduce fatigue over long periods of sustained exercise by delaying the depletion of muscle glycogen.
Now, we all know that athletes are perfectly within their rights to have a cup of coffee. And yet there's no denying that it has the potential to boost performance. So too can Erythropoietin (EPO) - the drug famously taken by Armstrong to improve oxygen delivery to his muscles.
Of course, there's a marked difference between having a cup of coffee in the morning and embarking upon a sustained campaign of drug abuse over a decade of competition, but EPO, like caffeine is a performance enhancer. I'm simply asking: where do you draw the line?
I am not for a moment accusing Farah of being a drugs cheat, nor am I defending the actions of Armstrong. I'm simply pointing out that the issue remains opaque.
There are some who claim we will never eradicate the use of performance-enhancing drugs from sport: the stakes are simply too high, and for some the all-consuming desire to win at any cost will inevitably lead to them cheating.
But the moral, and perhaps legal, ambiguities surrounding the issue are difficult to ignore. How do you define what is and isn't acceptable? What is a 'performance-enhancing' drug after all?
What's clear is that we can't stop having the conversation the second the Lance Armstrong case ceases to be interesting.
To me, the solution is relatively straight forward: a blanket ban issued on any drug that alters or stimulates an individual's ability to compete in their given sport - including commonplace substances like caffeine.
But I can't see that happening - at least not in the near future. The truth of it is the next Lance Armstrong is out there already.