That may be true in the sense that he was by far the most high-profile rider of his generation, I suppose, so if someone like that is accused of doping and shows himself resentful against the accusers, it may have more effect than when some lesser god does it.

It's also true that the Armstrong case, more than any other, has led a sizeable part of the public to distrust various doping authorities. The fact that for so many years, it was just the French who kept insisting that Armstrong was doping, made it seem very much like a witch hunt born out of the longstanding French frustration with their enduring failure to show anything of substance in their own Grand Tour (or for that matter any other) - the petty chauvinism of French sport journalists is legendary for a reason. It's quite possible that if not for the ongoing accusations against Armstrong, those against Contador would've been taken more seriously among the public (though not necessarily rightly so). But, while you can obviously blame Armstrong for doping, if indeed he has, it's not his fault if the authorities made such a mess of dealing with it that in the end a lot of people started to ignore what WADA and Dick Pound said.

That's what you call "ruining a career", is it? Singling him out to go ride after during one Tour stage? Armstrong was influential to be sure, and to be sure he sometimes used that influence for dubious purposes, but claiming he had the power to "ruin careers" is as absurd as the notion that he was "fighting hard to keep cycling dirty". He was fighting hard - fairly or unfairly - to win as many Tours as possible, that's what he was doing.