This is the problem with doping, you can't know how much better. Maybe LA just had better techniques and expertise than his competitors which allowed him (and team) to trump his rivals. This would mean the playing field was not at all level.

I'm inclined to think the expertise was more about the way they were able to avoid detection than any significant additional boost to their performances over their competitors.

Things Lance and US Postal did exceptionally well - focus solely on tour, take a tour specific team with only one objective, introduce training techniques to improve their overall fitness and performance, have a rider that was clearly an elite champion athlete.

Unfortunately they also introduced a ruthless regime of systemising doping far better than any of their competitors (even the eastern europeans).

Is the way Sky use sports science now any different? Vaughters complains of 'leveling the playing field' but sport is inherently an unfair pursuit. China, Russia and the US clean up at the Olympics because they funnel the most money into the event. Sport is unfair. Some are born with natural gifts, others are born into affluent societies. Do we scrutinise financial 'doping' the same way we do drugs? Why not? Someone will always have better equipment, better techniques. Armstrong won seven Tours in the context of the time.

The thing that vexes most people is the denials. But, meh. We just need to move on. LA doping is old news.

agree completely on the 'context of time' and time to move on!

Mr Hinds mentions the big point for mine. The continued bleating of "I have never failed a drug test" and "I have been tested 500 times".