Rominger was a classic case of someone who had talent, yes, but who wasn't able to become a "champion" cyclist without EPO.
Unlike Lemond, since the connection has been made, who was a star of the sport practically from the first year he turned pro, who then went on to win the worlds at 22, finish 3rd in his first Tour, etc, Rominger seemed unable to be good over 3 weeks before EPO.
Historically, therefore, this is the greatest disservice to the sport EPO and the likes of Ferrari have done: that is to always leave some margin of doubt regarding how authentic is what you see. Moral relativism aside, this to me seems to be the crux of it; because whereas with the stuff the guys were taking before and the relatively unscientific nature of doping in the pre-90's era, the amount gained, the receptivity of one athlete vs another following a given "program," meant that performance enhancement was relatively contained.
After that the sheer sophistication of both the drugs and the scientific methodology behind the doping programs literally changed. Ironically the progress of anti-doping has only enhanced the refinment and intelligence of doping.
A Pandora's Box was opened and the devastating effects that this has caused for the sport are incalculable in terms of its legitimacy. Because in a hypothetical EPO free sport, one can not be sure by a long-shot that the stats compiled over the last 20 years or so would have been at all the same. By contrast up till the 80s there is probably a much greater chance that they would hold up if you took away the products those riders had access to and, consequently, that the relative natural vs artificial talent still weighed heaviest in the former. By contrast after EPO the latter increased in mass and measure and so too did the distortion.
In other words modern science has killed the authenticity, the genuineness in sport.
We were able to watch for the entertainment value, but not for the reality of it.