What an extremely wordy and repetitive article mostly to say the author doesn't believe anyone can prove that Lance would have won in a clean field. Obviously, it never happened, so no one can know what would have happened. No one can prove a counterfactual. But I don't think the rest of the words adds to the discourse any more than the single sentence:

> I do not think it follows from Mr. Armstrong having been stronger than other cheaters while he himself was cheating that he would have been the strongest clean cyclist if everyone was clean.