If you've been a cycling fan at any point in the past few decades, you probably spotted something familiar in the whole Cummings affair.

It essentially boils down to Occam's razor - the simplest explanation is most likely the right one.

For example. When a professional cyclist shows the presence of someone else's blood in their system. It's more likely that they were blood doping than them having had an unborn twin.

When a professional cyclist has a banned substance in their system, it's more likely they put it their deliberately than them having eaten a doped racing pigeon.

When a professional cyclist gets caught with a suspicious blood profile on the day of the world championships. It's more likely they were doping than them having decided to go out on a massive drinking session the night before the biggest race in their entire career.

When a professional cyclist gets caught with unnatural testosterone levels on the day of the most amazing performance in their career, and arguably the history of the sport. Then it's most likely they took that testosterone rather then drinking Jack Daniels the night before.

When a man drives to a tourist spot on the day of his wife's birthday. It's more likely that they were visiting that tourist spot for leisure purposes rather than it having been some form of eye test.

When the explanation becomes detailed, full of clauses and unnatural sounding. It's bullshit.