Everyone seems to agree that, lifted out of context, Evans' statement is just good sense. But the context does make a big difference. In cycling, unlike many other endeavors, being investigated and cleared does not mean you are more likely to be innocent (or even more innocent, whatever that means).
Why is someone investigated in the first place? At best, because of major accomplishments, which in other endeavors might not make him more likely to be guilty, but which in cycling certainly does (how many riders who have made the TDF podium in the past 10 years do you think were clean?)
At worst, because of passport irregularities. Even if more targeted testing follows, and hard evidence of doping is not obtained, you can't say that such a rider is more likely to be innocent. The ability of riders to beat tests does not evaporate just because they suddenly come under greater scrutiny. On the contrary, a really good doper usually doesn't make a mistake that would lead to more investigation, and if he does, he is unlikely to make further mistakes that would result in a sanction.
Evans is presumably being diplomatic, and I understand that. He's also appealing to the very fact that, yes, applied to most affairs other than cycling, coming through a serious investigation not guilty probably increases the likelihood that the subject really is not guilty. But he would have to be pretty naive to think that greater attention/testing directed to a rider makes that rider more likely to be innocent if he comes through that investigation unscathed.