In all fairness to Sam, he is right. The error is on the posters who say that Sky peaks all year round. They don't. We can look at Froome's Green Mt. Time comapred to repeated efforts during the Tour, at a much higher level, and then a little less at the Vuelta. There is a trend toward a peak performance, and then a trend away from it. (speaking very generally of course. That's the point, is that general comments cannot be specific...)
What we are seeing, and mis-labeling peaking, is that sky dominates year round; that their base level fitness is a step (or three) higher than everyone else, at all points in the season. We see that Froome's Green Mt. time is what others only hope to reach by July. So while maybe it is correct to say peak results, it is certainly not peak fitness (And certainly, it is a broader peak than the LA type: 49 weeks of crap for 3 weeks of awesome, but still a peaking process).
That, samhocking, is very achievable through doping.
Edit: Also, the year round peak is not just people joking about sky, it comes from their own mouth. But, all that is BS anyway... The data are there. It is not a year round peak. Year round winning, yes, but not maintenance of peak performance all year.