I agree to a point. The French hated the Armstrong dominated the tour and for years have been looking for any scrap of evidence to show him as a cheater. Just as in the Braun case, you can sometimes get a false positive and all it takes is 1 positive for everyone to label someone as a cheater for life.
Armstrong doesnt do himself any favors though. His likeability factor is almost non-existent.
Yeah, the big jerk, fighting cancer and all that! What's to like??
But, to be honest, I have complete sympathy with someone coming across as "unlikeable" when being hounded over this sort of crap. I know I would have a really hard time doing the PR-happy thing under those circumstances.
As to the allegations/etc, there's certainly a little room for these questions---as I understand it, there are methods that don't show up in tests. It really, really stretches the bounds of credibility, though. An airtight coverup takes a lot of planning. Given the rigorous testing he already passed, I just don't see any useful outcome that comes from this. Even if somehow a new test demonstrates doping, the level of scrutiny and potential conflicts of interest/political concerns involved will invalidate the results of the new test. All it would take is a little tampering with some samples and this problem could be solved, and the odds of that happening are, IMO, about equal to the confidence I'd have in a positive test result at this point.
Clambake's ingenious tale above is the best reason I've seen. Hell, I'd probably get on board with the investigation with that rationale.