I have mixed feelings on this -- Armstrong was indeed an amazing athlete, and I salute his ability to focus and push himself. But I think there's some mythology about doping that muddies the waters, and makes these discussions come down to confirmation bias.
First, it could not have been a level playing field. The doping programs were all hidden from view, with a shadowy network of doctors and experts providing different services to different teams. Was everyone cheating in the say way, to the same degree? Of course not. If Armstrong's team had the best and most pervasive doping scheme, they had a substantial advantage, and the best we can say is that he was a world-class EPO user, but maybe an ordinary very-good racer in a non-EPO world. If his team didn't have the best doping scheme, then he was an even better athlete than we thought to dominate other great riders who were doping even more extensively, but we'll never know.
Second, all doping isn't alike. Even Armstrong is very clear about that. Testosterone, corticosteroids, HGH, stimulants, pain killers, etc. gave very marginal improvements, especially for young elite athletes. Some of those drugs helped recovery more than performance, some helped actual performance, some helped make up for issues in training. But they didn't turn a good rider into a great rider, especially not over a number of stages and races. EPO doping is something else. As Armstrong said recently, the other doping tricks gave maybe 1% gains. EPO gave 10% gains. Riders could generate staggering power, up hills and mountains, for much longer periods of time. It truly allowed superhuman performances, and that to me is why I can't watch that video in the first post and feel admiration.
We know that most of the legends, like Merckx, used banned substances at least on occasion, but the EPO-era was/is something else. It's ignorant to just say "they've all doped forever, so what's the big deal."