The entirety of the USADA appeal was public. This 'sdditional evidence' somehow wasn't presented then. It is also most surprising that the lab would release flawed analyses in discovery and not release the ones that were performed properly (that noone except the arbitration panel has seen)
The CAS judgement was a legal one. Did the laboratory violate the ILS for doping control? If so, did this materially affect the outcome?
It ignores the technical nature of the argument. Because the ILS did not explicitly rule out subjective processes like visual peak matching and manual integration (To which the response locally amongst world reknowned MS experts was incredulity that such methods would be acceptable) the CAS ruled that LNDD did not breach ILS and the results should stand.
Legally they may be correct. Scientifically they are dead wrong.
..d