The problem is not that they don't take doping seriously, in my reading of it at least.
The problem is that the poster feels that:
1) the bunch is a bit cleaner than it was a few years ago
2) the bunch is not sufficiently clean for them to have faith that the winners are clean.
Therefore, they are still suffering the same misery of feeling that the winners are usually dopers, but without the spirit of competition on the way, because the conclusions are becoming mind-numbingly predictable.
The other problem of course is that as the bunch becomes cleaner, the advantages of doping become more patently obvious. In 1996 there were ten Emanuele Sellas wearing out their brakepads on the switchbacks of the Alps. In 2008, Sella looked ridiculous. The bunch was cleaner, relatively speaking, so he stood out like a sore thumb. But we know that that bunch wasn't clean either. Just look at the GC of that race - Contador, Riccò, di Luca, Menchov... all up there. A lot of the getting cleaner was not that doping was stopping, but more that it was becoming far more regulated. This process continues to this day, where many riders are doping, however they are doing so on a progressively tighter leash that decreases the size of the gap between them and the paniagua until one day that gap can be breached. We mustn't be naïve enough to think that one day we'll be able to guarantee our winner is clean, because also as that gap gets smaller, the amount of dope required to turn you into a standout becomes less as well. You won't see Pantani-speed any time soon. Even the most sophisticated dopers aren't able to go at Pantani-speed now. This is because not only is it too risky under the tighter restrictions, but you simply don't NEED to chug the amount of EPO they did in the mid-90s in order to lord it over the péloton anymore. Regardless of whether it's clean or dirty, Sky are bossing the péloton with 5,99w/kg on the major climbs. That would barely have won you a race, let alone dominate the calendar, in 1996.