The proposition that you make in your article is that the ends justify the means: that as a result of Lance Armstrong's fraud the world is a little better off because he created a vast cancer-fighting organization.
I could possibly, maybe, kind-of, sort-of accept this premise if the objective all along behind Lance Armstrong's years-long, systematic, organized, bullying, coercive massive deception was to succumb to cancer (he admitted to his doctor during his cancer treatment that he had already used performance-enhancing drugs) and then create the Livestrong Foundation to aid the worldwide battle against cancer. Seen from that perspective, then, Lance Armstrong could almost be viewed as a messianic sort of character: sacrificing himself, humbling himself to save others.
But that's not what the evidence demonstrates happened. Lance Armstrong's deception was all about aggrandizing Lance Armstrong. He is today one of the wealthiest figures in sports. He was, until recently, one of the most revered figures in sports. The cancer angle only magnified the benefits that accrued to Lance Armstrong. How much of Lance Armstrong's ill-gotten $125 million net worth has he donated to the fight against cancer?
The world is not better because of the mammoth con-artist that is Lance Armstrong. What of the the legions of cancer victims who have felt very personally the blow and terrible let-down that is Lance Armstrong's lie? What of the faith that has been lost in heroes by young and old alike? What of the lives that Lance Armstrong ruined in his sociopathic drive to mask his deception? What of the damage done to the sport of cycling? What of the donations that will not be made to worthy organizations because of the skepticism and lack of trust that Lance Armstrong has freshly created?