That is an 'interesting' conclusion to draw from the events of the past few months and one in which, apart from a few blinkered flag-wavers, you are pretty much on your own.
There is a reason why pretty much everyone is sceptical about Team Sky, even papers and cycling journalists who have previously feted Sky. I get that you aren't seeing it, but I suspect that is more to do with a lack of knowledge and a reluctance to even accept the possibility of that Team Sky's oft-repeated promises to be "transparent" and "whiter than white" might be worthless.
As it stands, the story is still right up there. Nothing has been put to bed. Nobody with any sense (and that is pretty much everybody) accepts what Brailsford says on trust. Why? Because he is highly unreliable. He has been found out on every salient supposed 'fact' he put forward prior to the commons hearing. He tried to claim that the package was for another cyclist at another race (said cyclist put him right about that very publically), he tried to claim Wiggins wasnt even there when said medecine was alledgedly administered (youtube clip proved otherwise). Now he makes a claim as to the content of the package. Why accept this given his history of 'mistakes'? Is it because he is telling you what you want to hear?
These arent just "mistakes", just as the hiring of a notorious doping doctor (who is now banned for life) in 2010-11 was not a "mistake". There were people in Team Sky who had been in the same previous team as this doping doctor when he was doping the team and yet nobody objected. There was already an investigation in the Netherlands into this doctor at the time of hiring and this was in the public domain.
It takes a perculiar type of naivity to blindly accept Brailsfords glib attempts to brush all of this off.
Yes, we all enjoy a bit of sporting success from national riders and teams, but not at the price of integrity and honesty, including at a personal level from us as spectators.
YMMV.