IMO, this thread is triggered by a typical misinterpretation of a scientific study.
As a previous post already mentioned, the conclusion of this study is very different from the title of this thread. It says "There is no scientific evidence that EPO enhances cycling performance in elite athletes", which is not at all saying that EPO doesn't enhance cycling performance in elite athletes, nor even saying that there is no non-scientific evidence that cycling performance is increased in these athletes.
The full text of the study is available here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1.../bcp.12034/pdf
Quoting directly from the study, you get the much more reasonable conclusion: "A more scientific approach needed: Summarizing, the available literature lacks the appropriate information, validity and robustness to conclude that rHuEPO enhances world-class cycling performance. To be able to make such statements, more thorough research needs to be conducted looking at the effects of rHuEPO on submaximal performance parameters and the cycling economy, preferably in a population with cycling performance abilities as close as possible to those of professional cyclists and under conditions closely resembling racing conditions and the required performance duration. It can be argued that putting the treatment on the prohibited list falsely implies a proven beneficial effect on performance in professional cycling and unintentionally stimulates its abuse, although it should also be recognized that there is no convincing evidence that any drug works in this context."
It should also be added that the study does appear to be written by people with a less-than-expert understanding of the dynamics of cycle racing. A large part of the thesis is based on the argument that only a small part of the race is spent at maximal performance, therefore a drug which has only been shown to affect maximal performance can not be said to enhance overall performance.
I believe this argument to be misleading: While only a small amount of time in a race is spent at maximal performance, the time spent at this level is usual the decisive point of the race. Just because I might have a chance of hanging with a high quality pack in a flat race doesn't mean that I have any chance of winning a race.
Note that the other main point made in the study seems more valid to me: That is that many of the existing studies are performed on non-elite cycling populations, and that other studies have shown significant physiological differences between elite and non-elite athletes.