David asks "I would ask whether you have looked at the evidence and have sufficient expertise to interpret it?
"The report reads politically. And yes, when you look at the panel, I don't see many scientists there, let alone chemists with a backgorund in analysis. Do you?"
Actually I see forensic minds with an expertise and experience in evaluating complex sports and doping issues. So I'm perfectly comfortable with the ability of both USADA & CAS panels.
But that's not really my point, because my view or your view of the evidence isn't material - what matters is the process.
For me the questions are:-
Did Landis have opportunity to challenge the findings, present his case openly and without obstruction, with access to all available evidence? Yes.
Was the panel(s) intellectually and experientially equipped to evaluate the evidence put before them? Yes (as above)
Is there documented evidence that due consideration was given to the arguments of the defence and the prosecution? Yes, findings are published and it is plain (to me anyway) that due consideration has been given.
Or in summary - did Landis get a fair hearing? Absolutely.
So Landis gave it his best shot and on the balance of probabilities (this is not a criminal court where "beyond reasonable doubt" is the yardstick) he was found guilty. And we should stick with that - the verdict is guilty, no maybes.ifs or buts, he done it.
Incidentally, anecdotally there are folks out there testifying to a history of abuse by Landis, and this probably colours my view
But I do agree with what I think is your primary point - apparent sloppy lab work makes this a lot more doubtful than it should be and opens loopholes whre none should exist.