There were other factors that didn't immediately hit the eye and the mind as the eyebrows went up and the jaw dropped: by remaining seated in the saddle while climbing, Froome was more aerodynamic than the man scrabbling for his slipstream, Contador. And even as the French commentators rolled their eyes, the slow-motion replay of footage from their helicopter showed their television-camera motorbike a few metres in front of Froome – dragging him, but not Contador.
The interview with Kerrison drew its share of criticism but the argument was more nuanced than it seemed: what I felt was that a relatively superficial look at what went on showed that there were factors that suggested the attack that won the Tour was not quite as superhuman as it seemed to be at first glance. And in a sport where to see is to doubt, and there is pressure to state that doubt both immediately and publicly, that second look has to be worth the taking.