Tosh!
There is a serious question here, If we are to correctly vilify the present drug cheats and (when proven) remove their titles) surely it is simply rank hypocrisy to celebrate the achievements of other drug cheats?
Do we condemn them all, or just selected ones?
Answer the question?
Do you think that Simpson who is a proven drugs cheat deserves the accolades he is given?
Or is that too complex a concept?
What's too complex a concept is historical context. Perhaps if you'd phrased your question differently it might have some value but really, trying to conflate cycling 50 years ago with cycling today is ludicrous, it's just not worth making the effort to address, bravo to Rich for even trying.