Respect, indeed. Andreu only came forward after his career was in the crapper and he had nothing left to lose. If he had come forward with solid evidence in 2000, he'd earn my respect. But, he didn't. I won't single him out, that's actually quite typical. Riis confesses, eleven years later, only after a groundswell of questions arose, and a year after his prime protoge was caught leaving blood with Fuentes. LeMond kept quiet until LA eclipsed his record. Not in 91, when he claims he knew about doping. A pity he didn't. Things might have turned out differently. Then again, given the hypocricy rampant at the time, and still rampant today, they might not have. Who would have believed the brash American, making excuses for his fall from grace?
The Armstrong/L'Equipe/LNDD saga has been hashed to death. You'd have to be an LA lover to disregard it, but you'd have to be an LA hater to believe it, so full of rule breaking and questionable motives that it was.
The rest? All caught while riding on other teams. DC never publicly embarressed the sport, unlike Liberty, Astana, Rabobank, T-Mobile, Phonak, CSC... One doesn't have to insert a personal agenda to identify their culpability - they were caught. And most were caught in competition. Victor Conte said it the best - in competition testing is nothing but an IQ test. You'd have to be an idiot to get caught.
All of this DC banter is just fiddling while Rome burns. DC may have been the pentultimate expression of Y2K cycling - clean doping - but it didn't start the process, and the process won't end with it's demise. DC didn't make the rules (neither did the UCI, which is why this mess exists today), they just played within the unwritten ones. So they didn't show leadership in the anti doping crusade. Neither did anyone else. And most still aren't. Judging by this year's Tour, it's the same old song and dance, with a slightly different tune.
Hey, this nihilism sort of grows on you after a while...