Lance is back.  It's official, now that the man himself posted a short video statement (that's how official works in the YouTube generation).  He's probably coming back for the same reason Jordan and Farve and all the others - because it's hard to leave it all behind.  But, maybe as he said in the announcement, he's returning to the sport to publicize Livestrong's fight against cancer.  That would be nobler.  There's speculation, though, that maybe he's coming back to prove, by adhering to a strict anti-doping regimen, that he can win without doping.  That by winning now, at 36, he will forever dispel the rumors that his victories were drug-tainted.  There have been whole books speculating on Lance's alleged use of performance-enhancing drugs, by Walsh and others.  The case is built mostly on circumstantial evidence, i.e. that dozens of cyclists from his era have either been caught or confessed (entire teams, in fact), that former teammates have been caught or confessed (Swart, Andreu, Vaughters, Heras), that Lance's own tests from 1999 were positive for EPO.  Okay, that last one wasn't circumstantial, but it was from a test performed on frozen samples that weren't supposed to be tested - those rascally French.  It goes on and on and in the face of it all, one can't help but believe he did it, that of course he did it, that everybody was doing it.  Maybe he did - I can't know and my opinion is not particularly important.  But I wonder how a utilitarian philosopher would frame the issue.  Let's say Lance did need pharmacologic help to win 7 Tours after beating testicular cancer but that, by so doing, he was able to achieve the stature that allowed him to start a foundation that has raised millions of dollars for cancer research and, by his example, given hope to millions of cancer patients.  Does the utility of this accomplishment offset the benefits he may have gotten from EPO or blood doping or steroids?  Does the end justify the means?