I'd say it's quite a justified generalisation really, seeing as the period during Armstrong's success was so drug fuelled that you'd struggle to find many riders to actually award his titles to. Coupled with Wiggins' almost miraculous transformation over the past couple of years from also ran to contender....
Just accept that the 'sport' you like is a sham mate, we'll hold you.
You don't follow the sport so it's understandable, but the transformation isn't miraculous really. Look at the times riders now are climbing the cols and they're several minutes slower than the Armstrong era. If they're on the same amount of juice then I hope they kept the receipt.
Wiggins climbing style is to sit and ride tempo up the climbs. The epo era was typified by guys like Riis, Armstrong and Pantani getting out of the saddle and sprinting for 40 minutes. It was madness really. To use an example, when Froome attacks on a climb, he can't sustain that pace and is usually brought back in by folks riding tempo. In the EPO era they'd attack and pull further and further away.
Wiggins/Sky have reasoned that if they can ride a climb at a certain pace, it shouldn't be physiologically possible for someone to ride significantly faster for a sustained period. There have been several studies into what is possible. The EPO guys were beyond that, but the current crop generally aren't.
And to be honest, you're bagging on cycling because the sport is far and away the most effective at catching those that cheat. Dick Pound believed something like 40% of athletes at the Olympics were doping. How many were caught?
We have Usain Bolt making Ben Johnson's run look slow, or the tennis guys playing 6 hour matches, or footballers covering ever greater distances each match, or the British team at the Olympics suddenly kicking arse in all manner of events.
You know? If you're going to tar folks based on flimsy and circumstantial nonsense then at least tar everyone equally.