Originally Posted by Joachim
They may be doping, they may well be. I find it entirely plausible.
But none of that is evidence. Real world, and most definitely not in any court of law. Rogers and Yates can be discounted out of hand...most likely have previous on the doping front but find me a top 100 tour rider or a former pro DS who doesn't. The other stuff is just baa.
There is no evidence Ivan Basso doped in the 2006 Giro. No evidence Contador doped in any of his GT wins except the 2010 Tour. No evidence Cunego doped in 2004 except what Cunego himself has said with a nudge and a wink. No evidence any of Alejandro Valverde's results were ill-gotten - he's never failed a test.
The Clinic is not a court of law, and whether somebody doped or not is only a court of law situation on rare occasions. Only a small fraction of the dopers are ever caught. But absence of the kind of evidence that would be permissible in a court of law does not mean that there are no dots to join.
If something walks, swims, flies, looks, and quacks like a duck, a court might require further evidence; independent witnesses that corroborate your story that what you saw was, in fact, a duck; DNA tests and so forth to confirm this finding. However, in the absence of these, the duck might walk away on a technicality, but that doesn't mean there is not reasonable suspicion that the suspect walked, swam, flew, looked, and quacked like a duck and therefore was, in fact, a duck.