This year's Tour de France was branded the Tour of Redemption.

It was the first Tour since Lance Armstrong's shocking doping confessions, as well as the countless other riders who have admitted to drug-related misdemeanours. This 'new generation' of riders barely get through a single interview without reminding everyone that cycling has now changed; that the systematic doping which was commonplace a decade ago, and almost killed the sport, is no longer in existence.

We want to believe them because, if we don't, then what is the point of it all?

Yet as soon as Chris Froome obliterated the field on Ax-3-Domaines in the first week of the race, the Chinese whispers about doping resumed. On Mont Ventoux last weekend, the mountain that Lance Armstrong referred to as "the hardest climb on the Tour, bar none", Froome attacked, leaving his yellow jersey rivals for dead. And the whispering grew louder.

This mistrust epitomises what a sad state that sport in general, and cycling in particular, finds itself in. No sooner has an athlete produced a remarkable performance than the doubters are out in force, questioning the credibility of said performance. This inevitably applies to road cycling more than any other sport, so heavy is the black cloud of suspicion that has hung over cycling for so many years.

Is this really what it's come to? Are we so sceptical about elite athletes that our first thought on witnessing a sportsman or woman produce something special is that they must surely be getting chemical assistance? Sadly, this reaction seems to be the norm rather than the exception these days.

Certainly, some of Froome's performances during this year's Tour have been phenomenal. His ascent of Ax-3-Domaines was the third fastest time in history, behind Roberto Laiseka and Armstrong. The Team Sky rider's effort on this climb was faster than Armstrong managed in 2003 and 2005. The New York Times said that Froome's ride "felt a little like the days of Lance Armstrong". The overt meaning of this may be that Froome's assured dominance is reminiscent of the American, but the underlying insinuation is obvious.

The primary problem facing athletes nowadays is that any protestations of innocence go in one ear and out the other of the listening public. Too many athletes have promised they were clean, only for their guilty secret to be later exposed. Armstrong may be the most prominent of the dopers, but there are numerous others. Similarly, the "I've never failed a drugs test" line doesn't wash any longer as it has been exposed just how relatively easy it is to evade a positive test result, although this has become more challenging in recent years. But the guilt-by-performance theory is a dangerous one. Unofficial calculations suggest that Froome's power output on Ax-3-Domaines was 446 watts; it had generally been accepted that 430 watts was the maximum that a clean rider could produce. Armstrong has been recorded producing 495 watts.

Yet, firstly, the calculations about Froome's output are wildly speculative, as Sky will not release official figures. Second, how can anyone possibly know what the limits of human performance are? Breaking the four-minute mile barrier is the classic example.

There is, though, a very good argument to suggest that the prevalence of doping severely stunted the evolution and progression of alternative training techniques. When doping was endemic within the peloton, there was no need to develop original training methods. Doping was the panacea a decade or so ago.

It is reasonable to assume that, back then, if a rider's performance was not progressing quite to plan, then the answer was to crack open another vial of EPO. Or inject one of those valuable blood bags which had been safely stored away in order to boost the rider's red blood cell count. It was never necessary to think outside of the box.

Team Sky pride themselves on being ahead of the pack when it comes to their finely tuned training programmes, whether it's sports science, nutrition or psychology; they have every base covered and live by the marginal gains approach.

There is evidence to suggest that Froome has moved cycling on to the next level. The fact that Sir Bradley Wiggins dominated the Tour last year but posted times significantly slower than those of Froome this year has attracted suspicion this time around.

But even this proves nothing. Elite sportsmen and women are hardwired to push the limits. They will not accept that previously established bests cannot be surpassed, and they will not be restricted by assumed boundaries. Exceptional performers will always be outliers, producing performances that had previously been thought impossible.

If clean, Froome is undoubtedly in this category of physical anomalies. Similarly, Usain Bolt and Michael Phelps are outliers; natural wonders.

We should be appreciating the magnificence of their performances, rather than reverting to our default setting which assumes they may have had chemical help.

Will we ever get to this stage? Sadly, probably not.

High-performance athletes are not necessarily high, despite wagging tongues