Re Cecchini, Conconi and the prescriptions
AFAIK, the only real link between Cecco and Conconi is that he was initially a part of the Ferrara investigation, that when the authorities hit the pharmacy in Bologna they found there prescriptions issued by Cecchini. The dates on the prescriptions, I don't know. Those who know the matter better, maybe you can provide them. Whatever the dates (pre or post 1996), the authorities dropped Cecchini from the case (he says they never even questioned him about it). How that can possibly make Cecchini a well known associate of Conconi I don't know. Me, call me picky, but I'd expect a little bit more evidence for him to be a well known associate.
(Also, Cecchini in at least one interview I've seen says he sued journalists over this - now lots of people claim they'll initiate cases, I know, it's bollox. But Cecchini also claims that he won his cases and received compensation. If someone wants to ferret out reports about these lawsuits and the reality of their outcomes, go for it. This of course does not prove he was innocent, I don't claim it does. But it does raise questions about the reports themselves. Which is why what's said in a court case is more important than what is alleged in a news story before it gets to court.)
The issue here isn't whether Cecco was a dirty doctor or not - I think we're all agreed on the reality of that. The issue here is whether he was as dirty as we thought. We have claims from Riis, from Dekker, from Jaksche, from Millar, from Hamilton, from Cancellara all suggesting at the very least that - by the time they dealt with him - Cecco had got the hang of compartmentalisation, certainly where they were concerned. (Hamilton's version of reality is of particular relevance there.) Rather than simply dismiss those claims out of hand as being the lies of lying liars, I think it's worth entertaining them and seeing where they lead us, examine what they tell us about what we think we know. But then that's me, I don't need the world to be black and white, good guys and bad guys (or, round here, bad guys and more bad guys).
WRT the piccies above, and particularly the syringe. Yes, I think drawing blood is proof of doping, of course it is. It's all the proof we need and more besides. If you take it out, of course you put it back in. Everyone's seen Hancock.