That's a good question, actually. I think Jimmy is satisfied that the B wasn't contaminated, while Bora may be holding out for more info.
. . . .
My own two cents on this is that the B is contaminated issue will not decide the case, and I don't think it should. It has been shown in other studies that the level of free E that Floyd's team is referring to does not indicate contamination, and that even if it did, it does not significantly affect the T/E measurement. If Floyd were cleared on this basis, I would definitely regard him as getting off on a technicality.
My own position is that the 'free' E concentration doesn't indicate contamination. 1. because I think they boosted its concentration by using an innapropriate calibration curve (so 'free' E : E should have been 3.5%) and 2) because the concentration is so low that the value isn't reliable anyway. I'm certainly open to other indicators such as what Duckstrap and RJbora have been looking at over in power-point analysis though - it is just that the indicators at have not indicated that the sample is not OK.
I did think of an analogy regarding the wording of the WADA document we were discussing over in PPA. Let's say that WADA said. "Your car is required to be green". They are not requiring you to have a car - but if you do it must be green. But what if they said "You are required to have a green car". Then you would be required to have a car and it would have to be green.
What WADA say in this case is: