"If it's competitive then ..."
"If it's competitive then:
-- all the riders are doped
or
-- all the riders are clean"
I understand your line of reasoning in arriving at that conclusion. But there are two problems. First, LeMond's comments, while useful generally, can be misleading. Second, although we don't know across the peloton what the score is, we do know that all-or-none characterization simply isn't true.
Among pro cyclists willing to go on record, their estimates range, from 10% to 95%, at the extremes. But regardless of where they are on the spectrum, there isn't anyone in or around the sport who says 0% or 100%.
We know that there are some guys who are so exceptionally gifted, they can achieve high levels of success without doping. LeMond is example A-1. Charlie Mottet is another excellent example. Remove the doping and Charlie Mottet would have won multiple Grand Tours and almost certainly a handful of Classics too. But even though the doping kept him from those victories, he still was able to ride at a level other guys couldn't get to even with doping.
And there are others in those circumstances too. I have been reluctant to comment in specific terms, but I know a small number of guys who rode professionally in Europe in the 90s and early 00s, two of whom rode for Manolo Saiz. When I say Saiz needs to be booted from cycling because he's been doping his teams since the very beginning when he launched ONCE in 1989, I'm passing along the real story. I mention that now, because one of these riders refused the doping. As a result, he "never fulfilled his potential" to take over leadership of that team, as the physiological tests showed his natural genetic/biological paramters projected. But even riding clean he still had days like the spring classic where he broke away with then #1 in the world Sean Kelly and drove home a 2-man winning break. And where he blew up the small selection of riders on the key climb of the key stage, a la Popovych for Armstrong, sending his leader to victory over Miguel Indurain in the Vuelta.
As for Thor and Zabel, you're absolutely right. I have no idea what's inside their heads, what the circumstances of their lives are and what their individual personal motivations might be. (Although in Zabel's case, I have discussed this with someone that rode with him, knows him a bit, and believes it's pretty straightforward).
I understand why you might want absolute proof. And reasonable people can differ on where to draw the line during the period of time between when substantial and credible evidence comes to a regulatory body entrusted with administering and safeguarding a sport, and when (if ever) that evidence rises to the level of proof sufficient to "prosecute" and meet the higher standard for guilt in a formal judicial process. It's a tough balancing act, and no matter where the line is drawn, a price is being paid by someone. If you let Armstrong ride in 2004 or Basso, Botero, Mancebo, etc. ride in 2005, then you've avoided potentially unfairly penalizing them, but you've also potentially screwed the riders racing clean, the fans, and more importantly the long-term health of the sport. If you hold them out, you've protected the clean riders, the sport, and fans, but if by chance any of those guys were clean, then that comes at the price being paid by those held on the sidelines.
While I sympathize with anyone being held out of the workplace following the presentation of substantial, credible proof of wrongdoing, especially knowing inevitably there will be a few innocents getting lumped in with the guilty, I'm afraid I'd rather accept that, than the alternative of letting crooked CFOs keep right on, embezzlers keep their signature on the bank books, and probable doping cyclings out of racing for a reasonable period of time for the UCI to complete gathering evidence and either bring charges or drop the matter.
In our system of justice, arrests are made on reasonable suspicion, probable cause, and "information". At that point the person arrested is not "guilty", yet they are being deprived of their freedom and liberty, put temporarily in a jail cell until they can be arraigned and then tried. We establish reasonable periods of time for which people can be deprived, and we set minimum thresholds that must be met in order to do that. I see absolutely no reason to believe it should be any different in cycling.
Now there can and should be extensive debate and discussion on what that threshold should be, and what evidence should have to be presented in order to hold a rider out under reasonable suspicion. Just as there should also be rules on how long a rider could be held out in order for there to be a fair opportunity for prosecution.
I don't know where the tipping point should be established in the evidentiary balancing act. Nor do I know how a reasonable time to either proceed or drop the case should be established. I'm certain we're in agreement that reasonable suspicion and evidence should not be converted into some sort of de facto open-ended suspension that then operates the same as a punishment/ban. That's wrong.
p.s. on Thor or Zabel ... the problem here is that I am not interested only in the "rights" of Basso and Saiz (who is the one name in all of this that I have more than enough "evidence" to say unequivocally I KNOW should be banned), I am equally, if not more interested in the rights of Thor and Zabel. You seem to want to denigrate their comments by using a term like "yapping". There is NO evidence that they are lying or screwing over cycling. There IS evidence that Basso and Saiz have. Why in the world are you more worried about protecting Basso and Bruyneel than Thor or Zabel? That is something I have a hard time understanding.
p.p.s. yes, if the UCI is knowingly pursuing Ullrich and Basso despite really believing they're innocent just to make them "sacrificial lambs", then I'd find that just as repulsive as you. The difference is, I see not a shred of evidence that is the case, but a large pile of evidence that there are legitimate reasons they not only can, but should, in order to protect the interests of cycling.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
