He was, at that time, pretty much at the top of his game. There were rumours about doping, but it was usually dismissed as jealousy about the success of the "Blue Train", as Armstrong and his then-US Postal teammates were nicknamed.

But such was the atmosphere of the day that despite Armstrong's later fall from grace, I look back at that event with fond memories. The Tour was bigger than a single rider, even one as famous as Lance Armstrong was then.

Armstrong's comeback from cancer and his famous rivalry with German rider Jan Ullrich was the stuff of sporting legend.

It was not until January 2013 that he finally admitted to what had been doping on a massive scale.

But in 2009, when Armstrong rode the Tour Down Under, the doping disgrace was some years from being blasted into the headlines.

It has now been revealed - after a 10-year confidentiality agreement lapsed - that the South Australian Government paid Armstrong a whopping $1.5 million to take part in that race.

There is no doubt that Armstrong brought a huge amount of attention to the sport of cycling. He won the Tour de France an unprecedented seven times, although the doping admissions have robbed him of recognition of these victories.

Some will argue that the attention Armstrong brought to the Tour won cycling many new fans and brought it more into the mainstream, but others will point out there have been many, many great riders before and since.

Armstrong may have been the reason some of the other people were on the Champs Elysse alongside me, but most were there either for the love of the sport, or for the fun of being there for a moment in history.

The Tour would have been a hit with or without him, just as the Tour Down Under would have been a success whether the controversial Texan had been a starter.

It's a little bit like the way celebrities are paid stupidly large amounts of money to appear at the Melbourne Cup.

If it's already the race that stops a nation, why would we need an imported "star" to strut before the cameras and assure us they're having a great time?

The thousands of other people already there and having a great time don't need someone imported for the week to tell them it's an event they should be attending.

The Tour Down Under has long been considered a hothouse for some of the sport's up-and-comers and a great addition to the schedules of the world's biggest teams.

The $1.5 million paid to Lance Armstrong could have been spent so much more wisely. Imagine if it had gone towards helping to develop the sport at a junior level, for example.

Instead of trying to import someone with a famous name as a way to assure people that an event is great, the focus should be on just making it even better.

Just as nobody needs to be reminded of the popularity of the Melbourne Cup, there was no need to import Armstrong.

He was paid a lot of money and didn't bring a great deal to the event, beyond controversy. There were many other competitors whose performances were far more worthy of the media attention.

Bringing in Armstrong also highlights the danger of putting celebrities on a pedestal. They are only human and have as many flaws as the rest of us.

Appearance fees are not uncommon in some sports, but as Armstrong proved, sometimes you get a little bit more than you paid for, and those appearances may not actually generate positive publicity.

In fact, as Armstrong, Ullrich and a host of other "famous" cyclists from that era proved, the publicity generated by a star's fall from grace has the potential to do more damage to a sport than any high-profile appearance can do good.

Sport has always had its stars and many of them deserve their stellar reputations.

But when you start throwing fame and money into the mix, there is always going to be the temptation for some athletes to take the risk and "enhance" their performance.

Unfortunately, if it does go wrong, it not the reputation of just one athlete, but often the sport as a whole, that is dented and the sugar hit of publicity that comes with having a big name in an event is overshadowed by controversy.