mastersracer said:you don't seem to read very well. I never said LL wasn't doping. I said that winning the Tour of Utah does not provide evidence that he is. This thread started as the result of the empty inference: if rider x wins race y, then rider x is doping. The point - that a lot of people are trying to get across - is that the probability of LL doping conditional on winning ToU is no higher than the unconditional probability that LL is doping. Who knows if he is doping - it would be remarkably stupid of him to do so for an event that no one will remember who won it a month from now while there's intense media scrutiny and an ongoing investigation led by a rabid prosecutor.
As for the inference that LL is doing better at 37 than he ever has, therefore, he is doping, there is also another possibility, namely, that in general the peloton is less doped than it has been in the past. Who knows if that's true - there's long thread on here trying to estimate power, VAMs, etc. It seems certainly true that riders are having a harder time drawing blood and manipulating blood parameters in a way that isn't suspicious. There would also be worry about plasticizer tests (and whether its admission is holding up CAS on Contador), HGH testing, etc. It's entirely possible that a rider could do as well or better than in the past via not/less doping if other riders are also not/less doping, since ultimately it is only relative performance that matters.
I read perfectly fine. I just do not believe the garden gnome has suddenly given up what he has done his entire career.