Is a rider with intention of winning or making the podium in a race really going to have a banned substance on his person 40 km from the end of the race? What's he going to do, jettison it later, and hope someone doesn't pick it up as a souvenir?
i think the word "suspicious" is a bad one to use here, because it has a pejorative, guilty-till-proven-innocent, implication. If someone is murdered, and I knew and interacted with the victim, it's possible that I'm the killer. It's possible in a way that it isn't for someone who lives thousands of miles away and wasn't in the area at the time of the murder. The list of possible suspects is narrowed down from billions to some more manageable number. But simply having known and interacted with the victim is not in the slightest bit suspicious--everyone knows and interacts with other people. If i were seen to have a hostile argument with the victim a short time prior to the murder, that would be suspicious. But just having known him? No.
In the same way, there is nothing in the slightest bit suspicious--as that word is usually used--in taking items from the pocket of a crash victim. If there were no such thing as doping, riders never did it, no one would look at items being removed, and ask, why are they doing that? It would be obvious why. Behavior that is quite common in certain circumstances, and that has a perfectly obvious explanation, can't be suspicious.
That doesn't mean one can't be suspicious of Remco for other reasons. Just by virtue of his being a pro rider, many of whom are known to have doped, one can argue that there is some non-trivial probability that he dopes. Further arguments can be made on the basis of his performance. I have no problem with people being suspicious on those grounds. But removing something from his pocket doesn't add anything to that legitimate suspicion. IMO.