2. The investigation was never about whether or not Armstrong doped -- it was about whether or not he headed a fraud by conducting a massive team-wide doping program for US Postal, a much higher bar. 3. 60 Minutes reported that Armstrong's most loyal lieutenant, George Hincapie, admitted to doping, implicated Armstrong and the entire US Postal program. Hincapie never denied the allegations -- he instead offered an ambivalent statement saying he'd never talked to 60M and didn't know where they got their information. Don't you think he'd have denied such an extraordinary claim if it were untrue?
No one who actually understands cycling actually believes Armstrong rode clean. Sorry. As for the 'most tested' claim, a number of cyclists who have later admitted to doping never failed a test. The public doesn't seem to understand that tests for EPO don't test for the drug, which naturally occurs in everyone, but on the very subjective measure of hematocrit levels, allowing a course of 'micro dosing' to easily undercut the tests. (Google Bernhard Kohl if you're curious about how this works.) Further, there are no tests yet that can reliably detect autologous blood doping of the sort Armstrong (and every top cyclists of his era) is accused. And to deny Armstrong doped you have to ignore a mountain of circumstantial evidence: the numerous eye witness accounts (all 'disgruntled former associates'!), the fact that almost everyone who ever shared a TdF podium with Armstrong has subsequently been busted or admitted to doping, the sudden and precipitous drop in climbing speeds in the TdF since more rigorous testing regimens have been implanted, -- and before that, the sudden spike in climbing speeds in the late 90s and early 2000s when doping became widespread and sophisticated and when tests were still weak. (In what other sport did athletes suddenly get faster, then slower over the span of a decade?) And on and on.