SEVEN for some people is a lucky number but for disgraced cyclist Lance Armstrong it's the smallest amount of anything he is set to lose after it was revealed he was a drug cheat.
From 1999-2005 he won the Tour De France and the UCI has taken all of his yellow jerseys from him.
And he stood down from the board of the Livestrong Foundation.
But along with the tour victories every result from 1998 has been voided and his name struck from the records.
At the peak of his career Armstrong was one of the highest-paid athletes in the world and since his fall from grace the list of sponsors keen to distance themselves from him grew quickly.
One of the biggest brands to drop him was Nike, who cut ties on the same day as he stood down as chairman of the Livestrong Foundation while US-based bicycle company Trek severed association as well.
RadioShack and Easton-Bell Giro Helmets were also part of the exodus.
But calls continue to intensify for Armstrong to pay back prizemoney and refund appearance fees he has been paid since then as well, and the NewsMail took to the streets to find out what people thought.
Is it right for Lance Armstrong to be forced to pay money back when companies and events profited from his endorsement and appearance?
Opinion was divided with firstly Wes Tanna saying Armstrong should pay the money back because he denied doping from the start and he thinks of how much money Armstrong made from memorabilia alone.
While Tim Prosser took a wider view, and he included not only Armstrong but the other riders in the sport when he made his statement.
"I don't see why he should pay the money back when all he turned out to be was the best cheat amongst the lot."
Should Lance Armstrong be forced to pay back prize money and earnings from sponsorship deals?
This poll ended on 30 March 2013.
Yes, I think he should
No, I think he shouldn't have to
This is not a scientific poll. The results reflect only the opinions of those who chose to participate.