Armstrong has people wanting to sue him because Armstrong sued all and sundry during his career - the guy was particularly litigious and vindictive. I hope that the British newspaper (whose name I've forgotten; was it The Times?) sues the hell out of Armstrong and gets more than their money back (if you missed it, they dared to run an article in the mid-2000s which quoted someone who had seen Armstrong dope, and Armstrong sued the pants off them in retaliation). That's just one example; there's heaps more I can use Google to find. But I agree with your opinion on getting all of them. Personally, I just want to move on from that era in cycling, and I see Armstrong as basically being representative of all that is wrong with that era. There are still many caught and uncaught unrepentant dopers from that era, but I see Armstrong being caught as an important admission to what occurred, and being able to move on. A part of moving on has to be change in the UCI, which hopefully this will bring about. Basso is a funny case. He was suspended for two years and came back, but he's at a much, much lower level than he was before he was suspended, leaving little doubt as what he was up to before. Basso was basically caught in Op Peurto, yet used the excuse that he was "planning to dope", but hadn't yet. Not much of an admission, really. Guys who come out and tell all fairly honestly (recently like Thomas Frei and Bernard Kohl) are few and far between. Much easier to maintain the omerta and be allowed back into the peloton. To be honest, I don't have much time for Basso either. Or other unrepentant and denialist dopers, like Valverde.