ANOTHER day, another hero with feet of clay. Lance Armstrong, we are told, is not the sporting great who battled cancer and rode heroically to seven wins in the Tour de France.

According to the US Anti-Doping Agency, he was part of the “most sophisticated, professionalised and successful doping program sport has ever seen”.

In other words, a liar and cheat on a massive scale.

We know from far more serious stories this week that some human beings can be devious, duplicitous and plain evil.

We know, too, that many people are too trusting. They are so dazzled by wealth and fame that they fail to see the warning signs screaming at them to be cautious. They’re so desperate to believe there’s a superman or saint in our midst, they’ll believe – or refuse to disbelieve – almost anything about them.

Rumours about Armstrong go back more than a decade. But this is a sport where “performance enhancement” – that’s cheating in its Sunday best – is so common as to be unremarkable.

Even this week, the International Cycling Union (UCI), glumly accepted drugs would not be eradicated. What comfort to those who play by the rules!

We also know hindsight is a great thing.

Armstrong was tested more than 200 times and never showed positive. He was investigated by the US Justice Department for two years without a case being made against him.

The UCI says there is “compelling evidence”

Armstrong cheated. Its critics say its witnesses were threatened with prosecution for perjury if they didn’t play along. Most importantly, none was subject to cross-examination on their claims.

Alberto Contador and Miguel Indurain support Armstrong. Bradley Wiggins and Mark Cavendish urge him to come clean.

But we must deal in evidence, not celebrity soundbites. And until I find evidence that compels me to believe Armstrong is guilty, I will afford him the benefit of doubt and presume him innocent.

The most obvious question is if Armstrong was at the centre of this huge web of deceit, built up over a decade and encompassing, one assumes, doctors, riders and officials, why did it go unnoticed, or at least unchallenged.

The first answer is that it did not exist and that Armstrong is indeed innocent. The only other answer is that he and his associates were so powerful and wrong-doing so widespread, he could get away with anything.

Finally, there is the problem of tribunals with widely differing methods and burdens of proof. Is the case against him made on the balance of probabilities or reasonable doubt?

Perhaps the only conclusion is that cycling is yet another organisation whose governance and regulations are no longer fit for purpose. You could say the same about football.

But the problem isn’t confined to sport.

In most organisations, rules grow over time. They’re based on custom and practice, altered to respond to specific circumstances and based on the probably naive assumption that most people play fair most of the time.

In organisation after organisation they are now buckling under 24-7 media scrutiny and a litigious society. Someone caught in the act may eventually head for the door, but they now do it via their lawyer and publicist.

Blind faith in flawed institutions does no one any good, victim, perpetrator or general public. But unless we are committed to replacing them with something better and more honest, however hard we pedal, we’ll make little progress.