TheDarkLord said:
A typical debate with House:
House: I think "blah blah blah".
opponent: That is wrong because of A, B, C,...
House: Thank you for confirming that I'm right.
opponent:
he knows how implausible it is, for Armstrong to have won without drugs, but he maintains the pretence. And that is why it is so insidious.
He falls back on the argument about evidence, and natural justice principles.
Hypothetically, you rent an apartment at the finish of stage 6. Dump blood in a fridge there.
You rent an apartment at the finish of stage 15, you dump blood there.
You reinfuse during the tour by visiting your apartment. No one knows but Johan.
There will be no evidence, it will be disposed.
House is after evidence, but successful dopings aims, are to not get caught. That is, not to leave evidence. It was obvious in the past, that you could leave no evidence that met the theshold for a WADA positive, for the analytical positive.
However, if there was a judicial investigation into Armstrong, by authorities, where they have different standards of evidence, without any doubt, they would find that Armstrong was a doper.
House fails to address this issue.