In case you hadn't noticed, most cases worthy of press coverage, the trial is over in the publics mind (pro or con) before the evidence is even heard by the jury. Trial by press release is the modern way. It appears that this is good for the press and good for the laywers. Probably its good for the politicians.
The question that really needs to be answered is "what is guilty". If a rider passes all drug tests can he be guilty? Doping today appears to involve the science of knowing how much to take to do some "good" without crossing over the threashold of failing a test. Is a rider who dopes just enough to pass all tests guilty of violating the doping laws. As a comparison, look at the blood alcohol rules for driving. A driver who has a blood alcohol level below .8 is not considered to have broken the law. Above .8 guilty. Is cycling and doping the same?
How about riders who take something for which there is not law or rule. Is a rider "guilty" of taking EPO years ago before a rule existed covering EPO?
The subject is certainly a dificult one.