Love him or loathe him?

Why does Lance Armstrong polarise opinion the way he does? And could this be a future topic of an ethics thesis in years to come, muses Anthony Tan?

The news story on Armstrong's Twittered ride Saturday in Adelaide, was, judging by the number of comments on various cycling and news Web sites around the world, the most read story that day from the 2010 Santos Tour Down Under.

Other than the "Armstrong abandons internal testing program" news item, of course. But I'll get to that later.

Commentary on VeloNews' Web site, one of the cycling publications I'm working for at the race, ranged from "Lance is a phenomenon" to "What an egomaniac".

Furthermore, the moderators of the American-owned print and online journal were accused of not publishing certain comments - most likely inflammatory and highly derogatory.

At his official pre-TDU press conference Saturday, he answered all questions with the aplomb we expect from him.

One thing I will give Lance is that when he listens, he nods in acknowledgement - that he understands, not that he agrees or disagrees with you - and when he responds, in agreeing or not, he looks the journalist in the eye.

I like that - it shows a mutual respect some other riders don't show. One of which comes to mind is Franco Pellizotti, who responds to questions with a tone of scant interest, staring at the ceiling or nervously looking sideways or down - but almost never at the journalist. Why is that? Has he something to hide

Anyway, back to Lance.

What the majority of pundits do say about him is that in societies such as ours and America's, we give the person the benefit of the doubt, and one is innocent till proven guilty.

Should Lance be any different, simply because he won seven Tours in a row and in doing so, pissed off a bunch of Froggies who have failed to produce a winner since Bernard Hinault in 1985?

I don't think so. And are the people who continue to chase him, who continue to dig up dirt but come up with nothing but soil and sore hands, in a position to judge, simply because they're a journalist from so-and-so and lots of people read what they write?

Again, my answer's an unequivocal no.

In fact, as I've mentioned before in a blog some time ago on Cycling Central, it is the responsibility of the journalist to delve and to satisfy the public interest, but it is also the responsibility of the journalist to behave responsibly, and not chase an animal down till its legs grow tired, then shoot them down with a machine-gun when they can run no longer, regardless of their guilt or innocence.

I'm sure when Lance Armstrong makes that decision to finally retire, be it at the end of this year or next, many of those who chased him without result will miss him.

And if they're honest, they'll probably say to themselves, "Well, that was a waste of my time I won't get back".

I am not asking you to be a sycophant, or a fan of Lance who waits with baited breath to join him on his next Twittered ride.

But just as I expect my peers to write responsibly, I ask Armstrong's detractors to act responsibly, and- even though I'm agnostic - do unto others as you would like them to do unto you, to quote the Bible.