I agree with this. Personally, I don't doubt for one second that Froome and the rest of Sky's top dogs are doping. Personally I take their results as one big joke. But that doesn't stop me from watching the Dauphiné, because I've been watching (and have been aware of that) fairy tales for the last 15 years.
I feel that a lot (although there are always genuine exceptions, we all know people like Hrotha, Libertine or the Hitch are intellectually honest) of resentment against Froome is because he is the first rider since 2007 who is actually better than forum favorite Contador. When I look at Froome dropping Contador I don't see that as some crime against humanity, I'm just sad that Contador isn't serving a lifetime ban already. and that Froome isn't caught. Discussions about the 'real' talent of athletes reveal nothing except the preference of the people debating.
More in the area of speculation, although I don't believe the peloton is even remotely clean, I don't think the gains to be had by doping are that huge that you can overcome great differences in talent (assuming all top riders are doping to the limit that tests allow them, a fair assumption). When I see Wiggins and Froome, I mostly see guys who started on the big programs fairly late in life, Wiggins because he was clowning around in a undeveloped section of the sport where you can probably win clean (track) untill he became a road star, Froome because he was desperate at the end of a contract. A lot of other top riders (Nibali, Contador, Valverde etc.) only look more legit because they started doping at a much earlier age, not because they are cleaner.
I can't wait for Sky to get caught, especially their holier than thou act is sickening. But if the only result of them getting caught is that guys like Contador and Nibali win, I don't think we're one step closer to a clean of believable peloton.