Other bloggers have hypothesized:
Is this good news or bad news for Team Landis? That’s hard to say. A quick decision would likely have been bad news, because that would have suggested that the defense didn’t make a strong enough case to win. (Of course, one could argue that a quick decision could also indicate how overwhelming the defense’s case was.)
But, as you note, why do they need further consultations with Dr. Botré? And you’re right to raise the issue of the WADA Omerta. If I’d been a part of the panel, I would have wanted a truly independent scientific expert, not one affiliated with the anti-doping system. You’re right to be scared. The panel’s final judgment could well be influenced by what Botré can or can’t say without violating WADA’s Omerta.Rant your head off
I would like to think that they are asking Botré some very difficult questions. I would also hope that he is answering them truthfully with the disclaimer that he isn't quoted directly and thus upholds the Omerta.
I believe they've been working on crafting a decision in such a way that it leaves no question as to why they decided the way they did. Can it go both ways, sure... Does the length of time they're taking to consider it lean more towards the Landis side? I think so. I agree that if it were against Landis they probably wouldn't have to much explaining to do. The panel could simply state the evidence, while riddled with holes, still points to a positive and that would be that.
To make the right decision (in my opinion) and take the high road has serious ramifications. They know that their ruling will be scrutinized by WADA and may ultimately used to determine whether or not the move forward with the CAS. I believe the arbs may be working to craft their decision document to read, "this guy was clean, or based on LNDD's finding it's impossible to know for sure...just drop it"
Wishful thinking, perhaps...but I am an optimist.
As always for an in depth and exhaustive review of everything that happening visit TBV