If we give credit and admiration to leaders when they do good, as is pretty common here, we should give them analogous considerations when they do bad.
This is different to most sports where you are less likely to grossly manipulate the factors contributing to optimal performance with PEDs. Or at least not be able to manipulate them enough to be out of range of talented non-users.
I think that many sports just aren't looking very hard for dopers. We know that steroid and HGH use has been rife in baseball for many years, because the MLB was forced to implement a serious testing regime after Jose Canseco blew the whistle. Golfers would likely see a similar benefit in terms of explosive power, but the PGA has the bare minimum of anti-doping controls. A suspiciously large number of golfers have returned from the winter break with an extra 15lbs of muscle and 10 yards on their drive. Soccer places high demands on aerobic endurance so players could benefit enormously from EPO use, but FIFA's testing regime is remarkably weak.
Why do you think this dualism should exist?
There are certain qualities we admire and think make a good person.
There are other qualities that we detest and think make a bad person.
Should we really deem someone worse simply for the fact that he/she previously held admirable qualities? Shouldn't we just judge him based on the negative qualities, in of themselves?
These qualities don't make you good person automaticaly, they oftentimes make you an asshole. Plus environment where everyone wants to he sen as leader tend to be disfunctional.