TJ. My original degree and subsequent employment was in science, chemistry actually.
I value empirical evidence over anecdotal evidence any day. Lance may be guilty, he may be innocent, at the moment I don’t know. I’ve seen the evidence both ways and so far the only evidence against him is circumstantial and anecdotal.
The evidence in his favour is scientific and empirical. It is considerably more valid than anecdotal. Any scientist would say the same and any court would agree.
By all means have your opinion but bear in mind the fact that so far, he’s innocent.
It’s not Lance I have the problem with, this discussion has gone off-topic a bit. He may be guilty, he may be innocent; what I do have a problem with his your constant attitude of “I think I’m right therefore I am”