I read the article and don't know what your point is.
It's bad because it's cheating and teams gain an unfair advantage over a side who tried to win the whole time even if it cost them come draft day. How do you view Lance Armstrong? As a cheat, winner or victim?
Here is a quote from his interview "I went and looked up the definition of cheat," he added a moment later. "And the definition is to gain an advantage on a rival or foe. I didn't view it that way. I viewed it as a level playing field." Just because it is perceived that everyone is doing it, it doesn't make it right and the winners are the ones that are made examples of. The Dee's "won" tanking in 2009 so they have become the target.
This is interesting. Baseball is going through a similar problem, albeit years later. The roided-up baseballers, including Barry Bonds, were eligible for the Baseball Hall of Fame this year for the first year. None of them got close.
The problem is, it has been widely recognised that, at the time, you pretty much
had to be on roids to get anywhere. The MLB didn't do a thing (hell, they've only JUST brought in random in-season testing) and everyone got away with it in terms of the games themselves.
Now, people are blaming the players. But who is to blame in this cultural situation? Is it truly the players, many of whom were forced along with the hive? Or is it the administration for allowing it to occur? This is where the MLB and the AFL differ; in the MLB, the media ignored the problem as well, while in the AFL the media repeatedly made mention of the benefit sides gained by losing. Still, you can't have one without the other.
FWIW, cycling is different, has been ever since '98. If you got busted after '98 and the farce of that Tour, everyone knew you were stuffed. The UCI lost their shit after that. No mercy is expected there.