Ranting is fun and so is releasing one's frustration through a few carefully chose words of profanity (I would have been much more vulgar, because like you I am infuriated). However you don't get much mileage out of pitching a hissy fit and preaching to the choir (no insult intended, I found your arguments compelling) Question: Did you invite Wetzel to participate? If, as it appears, Wetzel is offering opinion with nothing but mindless conjecture to back up his accusations he probably would have refused. With seemingly not enough facts in evidence--from what I can tell--to effectively adjudicate his accusations, then the conversation is probably going to remain at the nebulous "it is what it is" level of clarity, not much more than a back-and-forth between sports rivals about who runs a clean program and who doesn't. So..rant on.
But if you could have gotten him involved for a substantive discussion of the trial and toned down the acrimony a smidge you might have a more effective podcast. As, I said your arguments are rooted in common sense which Wetzel seems to have abandoned, as he often does, in favor of his preferred tactic, mud-slinging. But perceptions will only change when folks like Wetzel are confronted and given the opportunity to defend their statements. If he is effectively able to do so, it's an argument we need to hear like it or not. If, as I suspect, he isn't then by inviting him on for a rational debate you've improved the tone of the conversation to Duke's benefit. You could start by debating the question "what does it mean to run a clean program?" I'm not sure I know anymore and the way the NCAA hedges its interpretations of its own rules, I don't think it does either.