Speaking for myself, I cannot be persuaded when no facts exist. I can understand if we have a difference of opinion based on the same set of facts arriving at different conclusions, but I feel some corrections to your post are in order.
When you say "it's not a necessary standard here anyway", this is mistaken. It is already the standard in the WADA Code for all anti-doping organizations to show that an accused person has committed a rule violation, to a fairly high standard of "comfortable satisfaction". Mere association with multiple athletes may be enough to raise suspicion and start investigations, but it fails to meet the existing standard necessary for sanctions.
Arguing that it would be hard to "rat out" agents, or even life threatening, is not a good reason to lower or remove the evidentiary standard and eliminate the burden to show that a rule violation has occurred. For those who want anti-doping to be taken seriously, the answer is to increase the quality of the science, and the investigations, and not to reduce the quality of law enforcement.
But I'm not so sure it is impossible. Mathew Kisorio was ready to speak to everyone about who provided his doping, including having a one-to-one interview with Seppelt. Seppelt convinced Kenyans to go undercover and wear a wire and hidden camera. Yuliya Stepanova, Liliya Shubokhova, and Grigory Rodchenkov also spoke out against Russia, in spite of great personal threats, as others involved were mysteriously dying. Where there is a will, there is a way.