I agree with the above. The reason I would like more data to be shared is not to necessarily look for doping, but to demonstrate that the sport is much cleaner than it was. I think it is beyond doubt that it has been far cleaner the last 10 years, but yet you still get people throwing piss at Chris Froome, shouting names at him and generally abusing him. Much of that abuse came from the suspicion around some of his tour de france performances where people were speculating about how much power he was putting out when he won on some climbs, with crazy estimate over 7w/kg etc. In reality, whenever he has shared his data and from studies, it is much lower than that and not unreasonable at all compared to peers.
The same goes for the current conversations on Pog. To be fair to him, he has put a ton of power data out there on strava (albeit from a single sided power meter I think), but if we had data from the final TT on the tour, I am convinced the data would show that it was a great performance, but not outside the realms of human capability and would somewhat stop people throwing completely baseless accusations just based on the history of the sport, which to be fair in spite of its track records has done far more than other sports such as Soccer / NFL when it comes to doping. I think someone used a calculation above of around 6.3w/kg for pogs climb which would not be outlandish numbers. Do people really think if Pog was on some outrageous doping scheme he would be putting all his power numbers on strava voluntarily? especially ones that may be over reading due to the type of powermeter?
Obviously for power data to have any real use, there would have to be some level of control over power meters, but personally, the benefits outweigh the negatives. In fact… I see no negatives.