Yeah. It's ALL bs.
The problem at this level is that those deciding don't understand burdens of proof, and standards of proof.
Then, if a decision comes along that is faulty but clears the athlete, who has standing to appeal, if anyone? And to what tribunal? And on what possible grounds? And with what possibilities of sanction? I know the answers to such things, but others don't--so, we get "rulings" like these, the outcomes of which will affect not only other national athletes, but also international athletes, possibly adversely.
It's not an area that is well-developed, and it is an area about which nobody significant really cares, because the actual dollar amounts relative to the expenses incurred are nothing compared to other areas of the law.
And make no mistake, that is what this is about--administrative law in the first instance, but also other areas and levels.
And it is a complete embarrassment, but then again so are others areas of the law that rely on the APA and its interpretation via boards, tribunals, panels, etc. that are often made up of people who have no idea what they're doing.
Again, it's a symptom of a much larger systemic problem.
I'm not saying that he's "guilty", only that in the current environment, we can't accept the validity of this "ruling" on its face, and that--along with athlete malfeasance--is what now makes pro track largely suck. Everyone is responsible.
What must really suck is to be clean, and to even be in such a discussion, in such a context.