Lance Armstrong is lying, of course. What's interesting is that, like most people, he's doing it so poorly.
Paul Ekman has found that only 5% of us are good liars but "most people get away with the lies they tell because the people they're telling them to don't really want to know the truth." (The hysterical denunciations of Landis within the cycling world do not strongly bespeak the presence of inquiring minds.)
Anyone who has ever enjoyed the extended company of children will recognize the ontogeny of lying "tells", from first rudimentary attempts, hilariously betrayed by long pauses and overt eye rolling, to the more subtle involuntary grin and eye widening displayed by the pre-teen who thinks he's about to get away with it, all the way up to Armstrong's bluff, non-denials. This is the way we fail at lying in adolescence and probably still do as adults, largely because we are trying to deny and justify at the same time:
"I didn't do it. And if I did, it wasn't just me. Anyone who loves this sport/business/country as much as I do would never besmirch its name by accusing me of such things. Now, unlike some people, I don't want to waste your time with a bunch of he-said-she-said or confusing factual details that, in the end, won't clear up anything. Hell, I wish I knew what this was all about myself! I mean, you know me, right? We've been your hero for how long now? And this nobody, this bum, this schmuck is gonna tell us what's right and what's wrong? Well, we won't stand for it, will we?"
How many times have you heard this speech? It's obvious, isn't it? Isn't there a simple lexical analysis program that could scientize what we all know instinctively and make it acceptable to identify and red flag patterns of public speech the way we now do with spam filters? (Outliar. There, the name's done.) At least it would force us to become better liars.