The CAS ruling seems harsh to me, at least in so far as the penalty handed down. If his original ban was 24 months and he was actually available for one of his three tests, he should have had his ban reduced by a third to 16 months, not 20. I don't know enough about the circumstances behind the first two missed tests - neither Bannister or anyone else appears to be publicly contesting the rulings on these. But the fact that he appears to have been in AA-sanctioned accommodation on the third occasion when the testers came calling and for some reason couldn't find him tells me he has a right to feel somewhat aggrieved, particularly since this effectively counted as his third strike. I don't get a sense that the sport's governing body has been particularly helpful to one of its elite athletes in this instance. I think an explanation is warranted.