Most of his peers speak of him as being one of the stronger riders of his generation. Does he have to "dominate" at twenty-one to prove your point?He wasn't a dominant rider or even the best Continental rider in the US when he first began his pro career.
Now you're backtracking, saying he was crap and he doped. So doping didn't make him better when he first began his pro career?It was also certain that he was not clean at that time.
The myth of the super-responder has never been proven, you do know that, don't you? It's the Higgs Constant of anti-doping string theory, an explanation for the inconsistencies elsewhere in the anti-doping argument.What is clear is that he responded well to the prescription given to him by Ferrari. More so than other riders.
So why introduce it?That doesn't even come close to validating his results if he was clean.
Look, the guy doped, we all know the guy doped. Whether he would have been as good without dope in a clean peloton is a thought experiment, nothing more. For it to work you have to be logical, you can't Disneyfy the solution by making crap up and offering arguments that have no internal consistency.