There has been some discussion about the parallels with the Contador case. There are some similarities, and there are also a lot of key differences. But here's a similarity that no one I'm aware of has mentioned, and which could be critical to the final judgment.
When Contador's positive was made public, he could have claimed it resulted from a contaminated supplement. As it happened, the final decision concluded it was. But Contador not only did not take that approach, he specifically denied that he had consumed any supplements at that time. He didn't say this because it was the truth--a rider in that position will say most anything that helps his case--but because he knew he would still likely receive a suspension if it was a contaminated supplement. By taking this off the table, he was gambling that he could get off completely, and he lost this gamble. While the final decision was indeed that it was a contaminated supplement, the CAS panel wasn't particularly confident of this, and since Contador hadn't given them any help in this sense, they gave him two years. Had he seized on the supplement explanation from the outset, admitting he had made a mistake, he might very well have gotten just one year. In that case, he still would have forfeited the 2010 Tour, and probably the 2011 Giro, but he could at least have raced the 2012 Tour, and would have been much better prepared for it than he was the the Vuelta that he ended up racing.