Clearly sports are not that important in the grand scheme of things. On the other hand, there is something to be said about having clean athletic competitions, as opposed to competitions to see who has the best doping protocols and who is better at beating the drug testing. I agree that the baseball hearings in congress were dumb -- congress shouldn't be getting involved. But it is entirely appropriate that there be an organization like USADA dedicated to fighting doping in sports. It's not really a lot of money being spent.
What I would do is take away Armstrong's titles and then simply declare nobody a winner. Basically, the sport was so dirty during that time that it doesn't make sense to declare a winner. Even if there were a way to magically figure out who the top clean rider was, that person would be way down in the standings. All of the major contenders were doping.
In a perverse way, the Lance Armstrong story is sort of a tale of American ingenuity. Lance saw what was going on in cycling, and figured out that, while practically everyone was doping, there was room to take it to the next level. As the USADA charges suggest, the USPS team was a doping machine -- they basically beat the Europeans at their own game.
Still, even though I have a perverse respect for that, I think that it would be really good for the sport to see Lance's titles taken away. If they are allowed to stand, it is a signal that the way to succeed in cycling is to cheat, to do it systematically, and then to bully anyone who tries to speak up against the corruption of the sport. If he loses his titles, it is a signal that you can get away with it for a while, a long while even, but eventually it will catch up to you.