Well, a look at the shortly resurrected Thomas Frei thread will indicate that at least one (currently former) pro-rider believes that not only will he be able to match his own doped times, but that he aims to do so in order to go back to the peloton and compete cleanly. Either is plenty naive - or lying through his teeth.
Anyone can make their own judgment call on that...
FWIW I've spoken to a former rider, who does know about the less beautiful part of the sport, who personally thinks the major part of the peloton is clean, but that the top riders dope - mainly based on the higher risk/difficulty/cost of effective programs nowadays. I don't think that sounds far out...
In the end I love "benefit of the doubt" as a concept, but definitely analyse the wording of riders and others when commenting on doping. Some are clearly hiding something, others not so much in my view.
I feel a lot has changed since the mid to late nineties and to now, especially since retirement 1.0 (or was that 2.0?) 5 years ago. The tone and wording from many riders and DS's is a lot more outspoken and anti doping than previously. To me that says the problem is less than before and headed in the right direction.
I know this'll put me up for a good beating in this thread, but since it's virtual I think I'll survive - Deep down I'm a good person and completely "tranquil"
As for 5% (or whatever it may be, because I think we all agree there are good and bad responders) - Maybe most good responders come from the less naturally gifted riders? Maybe most dopers tend to grow less professional in other aspects as they rely more and more on the juice?
Also there are many factors going into deciding who the winner is - the "5%-doping-increase-decides-the-winner" theory only holds water if the assumption is made on an "all else equal" basis. That simply doesn't exist...
I guy like Riis definitely used doped in an effective manner back in his day, but he also used something else that very few did: He was keen to innovate in other areas and worked hard to train more effectively, not harder, as his (mainly german) colleagues did on Telekom. Maybe the French riders and teams doped less in the nineties compared to others, but there are also accounts of how they were blatantly blind to other ideas such as proper nutrition. Scientific approach can be other things than doping and although Sky might look silly when they rely on fragile weather reports for deciding when Wiggins does his TT, teams like Sky, HTC and Saxo definitely do a lot of stuff that other teams could learn a thing or two from.
I'm not saying the peloton is cleaner than white, but I'm happy to think it's cleaner than what it gets credit for. Also happy to reiterate there's other factors than doping involved.
Basically you could pose the "how can you beat a 5% increase?" question on other areas that not everybody does or does as well as some...