To be honest what annoys me is people saying we know so and so is clean because..... (and usually it's because we like them for some reason). We don't know if they are clean, we just know that some of them aren't when they fail a test.
Indeed. Innocent until proven guilty ?. Not here it seems.
Why do you keep going on about "not here" . It isn't just here, it's through the whole of cycling in case you hadn't noticed.
There are plenty of cycling journalists and followers who are happy to help point fingers, and it has frequently been the case that the people and teams who have rumours about them are the ones who later get found out. It's perfectly legitimate to suggest that if you associate with people - directors, trainers, doctors etc - who are tainted by doping then it increases both the suspicion and the likelihood that you are also involved in it.
Among the people who never failed a dope test are:
Bjarne Riis
David Millar
Marco Pantani
Add to that the comments from Bernard Kohl about the way teams are using the biological passport to help avoid being caught.
Like you I'm also not particularly bothered about it - I just enjoy the racing and it is phenomenal, whether they are taking drugs or not. But to make out that people are being unneccessarily suspicious about riders who haven't failed tests is just ignoring established facts.