I don't do this often...
An emailer sent the following thought, which crystallized ideas I had but didn't write when I looked at the Landaluze decision:
The basis for that decision sounds lame, like they didn't want to let him off because the science was bad, so they picked some minor technicality. We may well see this with Floyd and the sample custody issues.The refusal to evaluate the technical arguments, throwing up hands at "disputes between experts" is absurd. It means there can be no actual challenge to the execution of the process or the interpretation of the resultant data.
If this is true, it demonstrates the enforcement process is absolutely broken.
Let's pretend it isn't -- that the refusal was just to provide cover for an acquittal that would not be seen as really condemning the lab and exonerating the athlete, as suggested by the emailer.
If that is true, it demonstrates the enforcement system is absolutely corrupt.
Finally, it is ethically bankrupt for the panel to have washed its hands of the substantive technical arguments made, and then insert opinion about the rider's culpability.
There was no need or justification for the comments made that it was an acquittal on a "technicality." Given the literalist reading adopted of other points, that section can only be seen as a "late hit, out of bounds."
But, of course, CAS answers to no one, and there is no remedy.