It's a great article, but I don't agree with it.
I'll play devil's advocate. Cooke did the double, but she did win 'just' two races, and ones that - despite what Seaton says - do not include the strongest fields of riders, as they have to also include countries that don't have a great cycling pedigree.
Who here can honestly say in any given year that the winner of the men's World Championships is honestly the best cyclist in that year?
It's a one day race, and often not a very good one at that. Is it a better race than, say, Paris-Roubaix, just because someone gets to wear a pretty jumper for a year at the end of it?
Of course, you could level the same arguments at Hoy's track events - but he won more of them.
Really though, we're squabbling over a spoil of riches. What is truly great is that we have so many cycling champions to choose, and argue, about.