Just a grammar point- If you could care less, rather than couldn't careing less, then you have some interest. I could (and perhaps should) care less about many things that are very important to me. I couldn't care less about things that I don't care about at all.
Back on topic: This whole case is meaningless. If LA said he has never taken PEDs then he was mistaken. I have never seen such a quote attributed and sourced. That he never took illegal PEDs is another matter. Certainly the EPO and other cancer treatment drugs could qualify, but more fundemetally, water is a legal PED (try riding without drinking for a month).
As for the specific charges, I doubt very much anyone can or will take action on these allegations. UCI may or may not have jurisdiction at the time of the alleged use (USAT/IOC may). Violations of US/state laws would require proof that use occured in those places (not to mention statue of limitations). European countries would have the same problem of proof showing domestic use. WADA has no jurisdicion in cases this old. the UCI has no jurisdiction to punish a retired cyclist but could retroactively suspend him (but when?). The whole thing is more complecated than anyone should deal with. The point of this seems only to change public opinion- how sad is that?
The proof in this case seems to be a case of he said that he said to a doctor- not very reliable. Any lawyer would be able to tear this testimony apart if indeed it was even admissable (if you could figure out where LA used PEDs in the first place).