The decision stated that Freeman's story wasn't true because Sutton - "a credible witness" - said it wasn't. The Daily Mail think would show that he has a record of lying (as he told DCMS something completely different) and an intention to incriminate Freeman
It's a perfect storm really.
O'Rourke on her first day of opening statements says she wants Lawton as a witness, and claims an Affidavit held by Daily Mail is full of lies and she wants to put that to Sutton because his DCMS statements are not compatible with it.
Daily Mail, Lawton & Sutton refuse to cooperate with O'Rourke's requests. They are untouchable in the legal sense anyway due to the legal affidavit and Sutton's anonymity in the story it protects them from defamation claims, but O'Rourke at least gets their refusal in public and Sutton knowing she knows it exists and will ask him about it.
Sutton arrives and implodes within a couple of questions and goes back to Spain before having to face the affidavit questioning. GMC conveniently only ever called him as a volunteer witness, he's a free witness, GMC do at least get his word the order isn't for him and why he's there for GMC anyway.
O'Rourke having reached a dead end with Lawton & Daily Mail now calls GMC to obtain the Affidavit using Section 35A of the medical act because it contains a number of lies important to this tribunal. GMC refuse her request. Given Sutton has just walked out, Lawton refused to cooperate and Daily Mail are just ignoring her, she now gets into the public that GMC too are refusing her requests and so it becomes rather obvious GMC don't want to know, don't want the panel to discover Suttons lies far more significant than Freeman's lies to UKAD about the Fit4Sport email etc. They already have Sutton's statement the order isn't for him and so already expect to use Sutton's word as the truth, without hard evidence Freeman ever doped a rider.
So, in the anti-doping sense the outcome is unsatisfactory for everyone. Even DCMS are now calling for another investigation and unless they get Lawton & Daily Mail involved, what do they hope to achieve that hasn't not been achieved already? Freeman continues saying it was for Sutton. Sutton says it isn't. Will DCMS call Lawton & Daily Mail? How can they? They'll end up un-telling their own DCMS Report that Sky were doping with the jiffybag which basically believed the jiffybag story happened as signed in the affidavit.