Tournament organizers and FIDE were pretty adamant that no cheating took place and that anti cheating measures were adequate.

They said no evidence was found, not that no cheating took place. (After all, it would most likely be very hard to detect.) And the anti cheating measures were upped after Carlsen quit; therefore they were not adequate in the first place.

If you decide to twist their statement this way, two can play the game. How about this: "No evidence was found that Magnus Carlsen was cheating. It does not mean no cheating took place in his championship matches."

Does that seem fair or reasonable to you? Sure no man can be as good as Magnus, he is clearly cheating in some clear undetected way, right?

To concede that cheating took place would mean that they had failed in their responsibility to stop it happening, and that somehow their method of detection only worked after the cheating was happening, rather than during or before.

For those two reasons, I think that any such "pretty adamant" statement can be discounted.

"random redditors say it!"

"nobody"