So you cannot provide any concrete examples of any details I have ever ignored simply because they don't suit my views. You just declare it as a matter of your personal faith and then move on to the next subject.
Instead you offer yet another baseless inference, which I just said I will routinely ignore, and for icing on the cake, you follow up with a "fallacy of the single cause", also something I will routinely ignore. I'm not interested in discussing your Gospels According to Armstonglivs.
We could quibble whether the three missed tests, and their dates, are the facts in this case, and the whereabouts violation is the conclusion of the AFLD, if that makes you feel smarter about yourself.
But what does the WADA Code say? The WADA Code calls a "whereabouts violation", not a "doping violation"(sic), but an "anti-doping rule violation", in and of itself. It makes more sense to view this as a punitive sanction, which penalizes the obstruction of anti-doping enforcement. There is no need for you to invent imaginary histories and imaginary links to other rule violations without any factual basis.