Using words like 'abused' without a solid argument, and 'steroid' without qualification makes you look a bit bonkers. It's not about 'head in the sand' it's about your tin foil hat.
What matters is primarily the rules, no evidence of breach.
Then the health of the athletes, no evidence of acting against their interests.
And then the moral aspect of maximising performance within the rules, perhaps Sky may have been a bit close to the wind. But then they ask people to be professional cyclists, and it's not at all obvious that that is a healthy lifestyle choice even dosed with pure muesli.
So far there is nothing but some bullshit. And from recent history the issues in cycling seem to be individual. Look at John Tiernan Locke, and how his performance decayed at Sky before he got into trouble for his activities prior.