Man my issue is that the whole process sounds pretty questionable. They just assemble a few people, show them their case and ask them to say yes or no. Who picks these people? Man what happens if the people on the hearing panel just don't like you? This whole 'quasi-government agency' deal is what I question simply because these are the lives of hard working people at stake here. Don't' get me wrong, if you are guilty, then you deserve a ban but it says they won almost all cases they go after which sounds easy when they get to control the playing field, so to speak. The potential to destroy the life, career and legacy of an innocent person just seems too high for the power they wield.
The panel runs pretty much like a grand jury. If probable cause is found, the matter rolls to a final hearing. Judge Wachtler famously once said that a decent prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich. This process is similar. To continue with the pun, the real "meat" is the final hearing. I recall that the Floyd Landis hearing was administered by the American Arbitration Association, which typically is a 3-judge panel. I am a certified AAA arbitrator; it's a very solid process. Typically each party picks an arbitrator, then those two arbitrators pick the third, who will serve as Chair. Helps add objectivety and removes potential bias from the process. The great thing about arbitration is that the arbitrators typically have deep experience in the subject matter they are adjudicating, unlike a jury that is mostly laypeople. This can be very, very good for Lance if he is truly innocent or there is serious taint in the testing process, or really really bad for him if he truly guilty. If he is truly guilty, he would likely fare better before a jury as a jury could be star struck and may be confused by very scientific testimony and lawyer "smoke and mirror" defenses.