Alpe d'Huez said:
......Night and day between Mig and Lance when it comes to personality, and actions. One was just happy to win. The other had to have everything.
A similar thing happened with Roberto Herras winning the Vuelta a few years back. (most here know Herras was a doper and former climbing domestique for LA on USPS). When interviewed after the final stage that left him GC winner, he was very very humble. He was riding for Liberty Seguros at this time and was busted for EPO and stripped of the title. He left USPS before this happened and has had a hard time returning to the peloton, possibly black-listed?
I imagine he knew he had "cheated against other cheaters" to win and therefore wasn't cocky about it. Cheating against cheaters is still cheating.
And as far as the question posed in the original post: generaly those who believe this are those who only follow cycling casually and receive their news from the mainstream media (at least in the US). I have talked to many people who believe the fairytale, but anyone who is fairly intelligent and objective is able to connect the dots after a while if they have actually set aside the time to do a little bit of digging beyond the surface. This is true in my experience, at least.
I have talked to a handful of people who initially "drank the Koolaid" but then slowly figured things out (a co-worker used to throw out the "fast cadence" thing out as Bob Roll had taught him to do, but then started to actualy THINK about what he was saying). He came along gradually as more evidence surfaced.
Another guy at a party threw out the "most tested athlete in the world" thing but I suggested that he delve into stats on track and field competitors and he literally said "oh, yeah.."
Same guy didn't even know, as an American, who Greg Lemond was !!!!, much less
Filippo Simeonior Dr. Ferrari. Sufice it to say that as upset and defensive for LA he was in the begining of the conversation, at the end he was "dissapointed".