Your analysis is not wrong. The UCI/The Tour DeFrance, Lance Armstrong were just as bad. You highlight lots of good issues (including - other people making money off it regardless of who wins, the act of not doping was arguably dangerous, given the exertion levels of the pack, etc). The conclusion of this section is fine I'd also agree with (It is true). But ultimately you fail to provide a framework for analysis. You conclude This is to say that simply saying you have certain values means nothing

If you were a CEO of UCI and the Board asked you: 'How would you "fix" the pervasive problem' would your really come back debating "doping" and "problem"? Or would your come back with something more like: Here is my Answer X,Y,Z. While itsn't perfect, we've identified things that are clearly wrong that we can fix. First, we need to draw lines between doping and legitimate theraphy. Second, we need to have the science to fairly test between the Two. Third, while maintaining privacy and fairness, the athletes and the teams will need to co-operate with the [XYZ] league to make sure it doesn't damage the credibility of the competition and abuse our position of trust amongs the fans....etc.

I'd actually be interested to hear your views on that. Your analysis pointed out the analogy to the Armstrong case (was not something I thought of before hand, but it fits perfectly). But when I see a huge, intelligent analysis thrown up then ends the way yours does, it seems like a waste of all the energy that you put into writing it. (Unless you are a lawyer -- with a point to defend =D)