I hope that this year's race is cleaner. I only really suspect one performance, but sadly, the unexplained drop in performance of a few others makes me question the past.
I figure there would be three reasons why this Tour would be cleaner. One was WADA/AMA monitoring the UCI process the whole way. I imagine the actual report will look a lot like the 2003 one, where WADA found a lot wrong and the UCI argued all the points.
Another aid would be intense scrutiny by AFLD, who could request targeted tests to WADA and those would be carried out with the UCI inspectors not knowing who the target was until the last minute. There was also the OCLAESP keeping a close eye on things. The Landis revelations are the third part. The police have a better idea of what to look for, especially in blood or doping products being delivered to the riders, and Ashenden and the Bio Passport guys realize how they've been fooled by consistent values in the past, and that EPO is used during the race.
Sadly, two of those three vanish now that the French race is over. I expect guys to look really strong at the Vuelta.
The scientific comparisons are interesting, but there's too much guess work for me to take it seriously. If it was done in a lab environment, they'd know the exact weight of the bike, and the water bottles (two full ones would make a difference), the rider's actual weight at the time of performance (up with solid food and beverages, down with dehydration). Even if you know the exact weight of a rider, his kit and shoes at the start of a stage, it doesn't mean he'll weigh that a hundred miles in, at the base of a climb. Still, it's fun to glance at now and again. Cyclismag does it too. I think they just posted one about Andy Schleck, but I didn't click through and translate.