Fearless Greg Lemond said:
Valid points. What is evidence for you? A positive test or an insane achievement? Then, what is insane.
I've seen some insane stuff in the past, and seeing insane stuff going on right now.
Evidence that would be sufficient for an ADA to deem a rider to be doping and impose a sanction, of which positive dope controls are but one but not the sole nor necessary form of evidence. Testimony, investigative evidence, confessions, evidence of doping product in possession, avoidance of doping control, tampering, evidence from other legit investigations, evidence of supply or administration of doping etc that an ADA would use in a case against an athlete. Doping is proof of doping.
There are clearly things that raise greater level of suspicion, e.g. type and frequency of associations with well known doping supply/support chain, or substance import documentation or financial transactions, and such things presumably would be part of investigative evidence.
As for performances, well let's face it, all pro performance is insane, so they are all by necessity under suspicion in any case, whether or not they are doping. How does one determine what is sane and what's not?
I just don't see how the loose estimation about performances bandied about here is sufficient. But let's say it was, what is considered legit in performance terms, and what is not?
There simply isn't a clearly defined sans-doping performance plausibility line. It is, like it or not, it's a fat murky grey range, like a probability cloud.