2 observations:
1) whoever wrote the decision also has an IQ of 70, it is that poorly written; and
2) is not being able to run "pain free" a legitimate reason for the granting of a TUE for the medical administration of either/or testosterone or hgh?
Regarding (2), there must be some sort of sliding scale. I imagine that if an athlete couldn't walk without pain, then such a drug could be considered "medically necessary" in the minimum amount that would eliminate the pain. What about an amount that eliminated the pain while walking, but not while running? Would a greater dose be legitimate? What if there was pain only when running but not while walking? And what level of running?
It seems to me that a decent case could have been made out by Gay and his doctor for a TUE, if the TUE application had been properly shaped.
Just rambling.