Can you re-phrase that as I don't understand your point?Merckx index said:1) If this conclusion is true, then those who argue against using power data as an indication of doping—e.g., Alex S. and Andy C., in the Clinic—on the grounds that we already know who to target are missing the point. If most riders are doping, then targeting is not the solution. At best, it will slightly increase the chances of catching the best riders, but if there are limited resources, it will also decrease the chances of catching other riders who are also doping.
If it was true, then it seems to me it would support my original point about the futility of attempting to target testing with the "aid" of power meter data, i.e. it won't help much because to have an real anti-doping impact you really need to target everyone and do so with high frequency. IOW it's not targeted approach at all, but rather a carpet bomb approach.
That was my original point in the "power as a dope-o-meter" discussions, i.e. the targets we already know, i.e. professional bike riders. Of course a carpet bomb anti-doping strategy will never happen.
Whether it's true or not is another question, as rightly you go on to consider.
Even if it's not, the reality is that until the perception of getting caught is high enough, then anti-doping strategies will not be effective in significantly eliminating doping.