Yay!. I'm not invisible.
The thinking goes like this.
Two-step soft forks, the Sporks, are used to prevent problems with hard forks, right? Implement new code, fork it, if it works enforce it; if it doesn't work, use the checkpoint to roll back?
If that is the case, the Nr.1 issue preventing Litecoin and Bitcoin from updating their code base is chaos caused by hard forks. QED, if sporks prevent the risks from hard forks, Evan just save Bitcoin and Litecoin from ASICs as they have the freedom to change their algo with nothing more than a reasonable notice period - say 6 - 12 months of a spork event.
I won a prize recently for laterally thinking. Did I do it again? Did I? Well?

Edit: My post could have been read as an insult and it definitely wasn't it's intention.