You do have an over-active imagination. I have to wonder why you feel the need to go to such extreme lengths to express false outrage for things I didn't say, either by omission, or by your own fabrication.
You seem to agree you didn't downvote the content of the post "rojo" found "brilliant", but downvoted it for things not in the post, or alternatively, things I've said in the past. I just wonder if I had posted with any unregistered username, like you do, if that identical post would have earned 3 upvotes and 19 downvotes and counting. Whatever your personal reasons for downvoting, I still suspect most downvoters just read my username and downvote it without giving it a first thought. Or maybe it is just you downvoting it 19 times.
I wasn't troubled by the Panel doubting the adulteration scenario with significant caveats, but by the posters here calling for 8 years to lifetime ban for tampering, in light of such doubts the Panel went unnecessarily out of their way to express.
I would be most troubled by intentional doping, if that were established. I looked for any evidence of the AIU establishing intent, or even the Panel presuming or deeming or finding intent, and couldn't find it anywhere in the decision. I see where the Athlete failed establish the source, and that it is the regulatory framework that does not permit a lower sanction -- the Panel's hands are tied by the regulatory framework. This is where the Panel's awareness of the difficulty, or impossibility, of establishing contamination is most relevant.
I suppose adulteration by other parties would also be most troubling, considering the Athlete is the one who will be banned by the acts of others. Is your false outrage because I failed to be most troubled that he was potentially framed by another party? Weird. Regardless of who potentially adulterated the gummies, the Panel expressed signficant caveats with the adulteration scenario.
Is calling a 19-year old "boy" false or racist? Wow. I honestly didn't see that coming. Is it transphobic too, for ignoring gender fluidity? English speaking guidelines say there is no magical age boundary where you must call a boy a man. Depending on the context, boyhood can end at puberty at ~14 years old, or at full adult maturity at ~25 years old. Even legally, it varies between 18 and 21. The Supreme court ruled that "boy" can be racist, depending on many factors such as context, meaning, tone, superior role (e.g. boss to employee), etc. -- factors for a lower court to decide after evidentiary fact-finding.
Here the clear meaning is to emphasize his youth and inexperience when being forced to fund a defense and then defend himself in an anti-doping case, having just recently graduated from high school. This would be equally applicable to any young male regardless of race, recently graduating from high school, put in the same situation. For young females, we can equally say "19-year girl", regardless of race.
Whether you want to believe it or not, it is true that the AIU can allege whatever comes to mind, without bearing any burden of proof. There is no pretense or bias. In fact, they did allege intentional use and adulteration, and bore no burden of proving these allegations to any standard. They are in a convenient position. Regarding the witness testimonies, no one said that GW1516 in "unclean trays" was impossible. In fact the Panel said they still couldn't rule it out. If the company had used GW1516 ingredients in some of their products, the witnesses might be reluctant to admit it. Or they may simply be unaware that their own ingredients were contaminated at their supplier, or that GW1516 is known by other names like Cardarine. In all cases, this is another hurdle thrown only in front of the Athlete -- the only party with any real burden -- after testing his remaining supply already found a likely source, and the Panel found significant caveats with the adulteration (by the athlete or anyone else) scenario.
