Just FYI, that story was a follow up to one reporting on the dismissal of the suit.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/judge-sides-with-usada-in-armstrong-suit
After putting that up, and reading the 30 page decision, while simultaneously trying to balance production of the Vuelta coverage, writing and posting other news like Voigt signing w/ RSNT, catching up on Portugal results after getting abusive emails about it, trying to get a straight answer from the UCI about their next steps in the Armstrong case, and fielding an interview from an Austin radio station ... I set out to do the follow up story on the aspect of the decision I found to be most newsworthy: the harsh criticism the judge had for USADA.
Sure, I could have written another 1000 words picking apart each point the judge made that highlighted his lack of knowledge of doping history, the politics of cycling's governance etc. etc., but I was flying solo and had to put out the narrowest possible piece I could.
I am pleased that our readers are knowledgeable enough to read between the lines and see that there is much more to the story. That narrow report was not meant to be a full analysis of the decision, merely a report stating that all was not rosy for USADA.
Hope that helps.
(don't expect me to come back to the forums for further discussion, it's another busy day in the office.)