The Watcher wrote:
The Watcher suggests that Mr Dog reads his own link. Bailey refuses to give a sample because he believes the water bottles being offered to him could have been contaminated.
I'd suggest The Watcher goes back and reads it again, but just for you a few of the pertinent points that show your conclusion to be somewhat adrift from reality:
Point 40 dismisses any justification for refusing to take the test on the basis that the bottles may have been tampered with:
"There was no valid reason for Mr Bailey to have not taken the test. Any concern of Mr Bailey over the water could have been catered for by doing as Mr Taylor in fact suggested, that is by making a written record of his concerns, and even retaining one of the bottles for subsequent analysis if necessary." Point 47 rules out a dismissal of the case based on the procedural irregularities highlighted by his defence.
The conclusion clearly states that
"
the anti-doping violation is established" ie the panel found him 'guilty' of the charge of failing or refusing to provide a sample he was facing. However, they also found that he bore 'no fault or negligence' due to the "truly exceptional circumstances of his case" and therefore he received no punishment. Those circumstances are not specified but appear to be medical reasons based on the evidence of 2 psychiatrists, virtually all of which is redacted in the published judgement - I will not speculate on that evidence but if you do read the judgement some of the phrases used may lead you to form an opinion on what those circumstances may be.
