doctorSpoc: "his weird performance curve (i.e. going from good single day/classic rider to greatest TdF/stage race rider in the history of the sport) isn't at least enough to raise an ebrow?"

Um, the invasive events of his cancer treatment could plausibly explain this change but I am not saying he is clean. I am just saying we should, in the absence of adjudicated evidence, assume he is clean because he says he is. The circumstantial evidence could indicate cheating but could also indicate exactly what Armstrong and Co. say it does.

The thing about circumstantial cases is that the evidence must pass a simple test. Is there any other plausible explanation for the given evidence that indicates innocence. If so a jury must believe the innocent outcome rather than accused outcome. Convictions can only occur if the only reasonable conclusion drawn from the circumstantial evidence leads to guilt. Unreasonable explanations for the evidence do not count as valid (ie aliens did it). This is where Hamilton failed. The likelihood of Vanishing Twin syndrome did not convince two of three judges thus he is guilty of cheating. Circumstantial evidence is a main source of false convictions as it depends too much on partial information and witness believability. However, his Olympic medal is safe because of the unsubstantiated 1st test. The burden of proof was not met by the accusers (ie two conclusive samples).

I am constantly disappointed that we reserve the "innocent until proven guilty" only for the court room.