A muddy situation. UCI is, itself, implicated in the USADA charging letter. However, UCI are not wrong, I think, in questioning whether USADA ought to consider acting in this case, given (1) how long it's been since the events alleged occurred, and (2) the fact that the evidence is not a chemical test but the testimony of individuals as to what they heard or saw. The latter is not irrelevant as to what we ought to believe, of course, but overturning important results on that basis alone is something else, I think.
The article is relevant to other threads but also of independent importance.