Not killing comes naturally. Referees are not very natural, but we need them to uphold rules that don't come naturally. Rules don't have to be bad to be stupid or somewhat arbitrary, and they do shape the game/society. But cycling definitely was a stupid game knowing what we all know now. Almost as stupid as pro-wrestling, but at least they don't hide it, which makes them far more respectable than cycling ever was. Armstrong could only do what he did with the higher-ups knowing, and with the leverage he had against them and the entire sport. No one idolizes the International Cycling Union[1] as one does an athlete, but they made the beast that was Lance Armstrong.
The takeaway is that it's wrong to look just at the players. When cheating is a prerequisite to success, it's often the game that is already rigged.
--- [1] http://www.foxsports.com/cycling/story/investigation-interna...
> Rules in society are also pretty stupid.
If you mean laws than no.. they are not stupid. Killing people and getting away with it is bad. And some of the "rules" in wall street if broken can have an equally horrific impact.
And that comes back to the question do the ends justify the means? Sometimes it does for sure. For Armstrong it could be argued it did.