Let's say you are with USPS in the late 90's, and you have come up with some pioneering training ideas to improve the team's performance in the Tour de France.
Don't you think that if the racing world believes that your team is doping that it will be far less likely for them to figure out what you're really doing, which is a combination of several different strategies, not least of which is extreme familiarity with every stage course of the upcoming Tour? In other words, if you are not doping but the world thinks you are, that's an advantage for you. You will never test positive because you don't dope. You will stay far ahead of the competition because the rest will think you're hiding the doping well and will not look for the other reasons for better performance. Why quell the controversy?
Don't you think that if the racing world believes that your team is doping that it will be far less likely for them to figure out what you're really doing, which is a combination of several different strategies, not least of which is extreme familiarity with every stage course of the upcoming Tour? In other words, if you are not doping but the world thinks you are, that's an advantage for you. You will never test positive because you don't dope. You will stay far ahead of the competition because the rest will think you're hiding the doping well and will not look for the other reasons for better performance. Why quell the controversy?