You are making me dizzy.
Too much information and arguments mixed together with an unclear formatting. Have you by any chance watched yes minister? The top bureaucrat has lines which resemble what you wrote. I have to admit it is late and my mind has left me somewhat.
My argument is simple. Which scenario requires less mental energy?
A. Explaining how Froome has became as good as he has without doping.
B. Explaining how Froome has become as good as he has with doping.
For me B. is much easier. But is the fact that it is easier indicative of B being more correct than A?
To decouple this from thoughts of Froome, do the same exercise for the winner of the Tour de Suisse, Rui Costa.
a. Explaining how Costa has became as good as he has without doping.
b. Explaining how Costa has become as good as he has with doping.
For me again b is the easy option. But again, is the fact that it's easier to construct a scenario of Costas results being due to doping indicative that he is doping?
In both cases I would say no.