Parker said:
There are many variables at play in your analysis
The necessity of the rider to go fast
The standard of the rest of the field
The standard of the equipment used/rider position
The level of doping of the rest of the field
Weather changes on the day
The progression of rider over the first few years of a career
However, you have dismissed all of these as inconvenient and decided the only variable is doping. Why? I don't think you are stupid, so the only explanation is you're trying to fool somebody - most likely yourself.
So your hypothesis is that Froome always had the ability to crunch out race-winning amounts of power but chose not to because it wasn't necessary?
He could have lived his current life of luxury from an early age by making use of his obvious GT winning potential (after all, he had been tested by the UCI and put out Hinault-esque numbers) but chose to soft-pedal and hide that talent in every single race he rode so he could be a domestique with an expiring contract instead?
Froome never won a TT before his transformation, regardless of the quality of the field. He had a few top 10s, mainly in smaller African stage races, but sucked out loud against good riders. After 2011 he has consistenly been in the top 3 in the biggest stage races in the world, against the likes of Wiggo, Martin, Cancellara, etc. If anything, the standard of the rest of the field argument is strong evidence of him doping.
Froome rode Sky's state of the art TT bikes before 2011 and couldn't win TTs on them and even in his annus mirabilis of 2013 he still hadn't been in a wind tunnel to perfect his position.
He couldn't show his natural ability because the entire field was doping, but then suddenly, in a period of less than a month, they all decided the game was over and cleaned up their act?
Even the most extreme weather changes on the day will only show as one anomalous result amongst many unaffected results. Unless Froome was riding with a cloud of rain permanently following him around the course, the amount of data points John Swanson uses means that a few weather-affected time trials won't significantly skew the numbers as a whole. In addition, why is it that pre-2011 Froome would always be so affected by bad weather that his TT results were mediocre at best, while post-2011 Froome gets nothing but sunshine and tailwinds?
As Swanson said, he has looked at other riders and seen a smooth progression. With Froome there's no progression. There's just a massive, inexplicable jump in performance at the 2011 Vuelta.
The amount of mental gymnastics required to believe in all of the above... Occam's god damn razor, people.