It’s an unfortunate downside to human nature that whenever somebody does exceptionally well in his or her career, job or sport doubts concerning the legitimacy of that person’s achievements are never far behind.

A case in point is the controversy surrounding Britain’s Chris Froome, the winner, for the second year in a row, of the gruelling Tour de France, the toughest test in cycling or, as many experts say, in any sport. During the Tour Froome produced some outstanding performances causing some French commentators (bad losers perhaps) to allege that those performances, like those of the disgraced Lance Armstrong, a few years back, were too good to be true.

Why were they too good to be true? What if Froome is simply a superb athlete at the top of his game taking what his skills and efforts deserve? What if this is simply a case of cycling, like the proverbial dog, having been given a bad name through the behaviour of Armstrong?

Common sense dictates that the only way to settle the matter is for Froome and his team to be as transparent as possible (which they apparently have been) and allow the sport’s ruling body to carry out whatever investigations are deemed necessary. Then when the all clear is given,  cock a snook at the doubters and say “I told you so” or preferably something a little stronger. I, for one, would be pleased to assist with the exact wording!