Maybe folks can answer these in comments:
What legal code will CAS be operating under? WADA "law" or Swiss law? Which one has precedence? If a question is not addressed by WADA law does Swiss law take over? Can this be exploited to allow discovery by the Landis team? Is Procedural Order 2 over, thereby allowing more discovery by the Landis team?Can CAS set precedent? From a science perspective, there are significant and unresolvable problems with doing reliable data analysis on the LNDD chromatographs. TBV and Ali's extensive (impressive and very enjoyable) Idiot series takes one step by step through what a scientist should realize intuitively. Whether those problems are due to bad chemistry, system noise, obsolete/misused hardware or software, technician incompetence, or other factors would be interesting to know if one were a lab director looking to improve results and performance.
But from the appeal point of view, (it seems to me at least) it appears that USADA may be able to squirm out through the ambiguities of the WADA law. Larry and M's discussion on TD2003IDCR has laid bare the difficulty of nailing down WADA law. One thoughtful and unbiased (I'm assuming M is unbiased since most participants on this site obviously are;-) lawyer has confounded everyone's best efforts at finding the Holy Grail of ISL violations.
There is no technical requirement that data analysis can only be done on reliable data. There is no requirement that results must conform to scientific principles established through the peer-reviewed system.
Can CAS look at the perponderance of evidence and set precedence by saying that LNDD's results do not meet some minimum scientific requirement "inherent" in WADA law even if not explicitly stated by a WADA TD or ISL?
If not, then I'm afraid Landis' best hope is to get off on what the media would view as a "technicality" like COC issues.