All I will say is that it gives them a choice. If they now go ahead and propose a ban (especially of one year) it will show that it was a real leak and that the integrity of the investigation is compromised. That's as serious as it gets for a professionally conducted enquiry and strengthens our potential argument that it was never a properly-conducted independent investigation but a pre-judged witch-hunt. And the answers to the questions I have posed above need to be answere. Who and why.
The NYT has a choice. They can either admit they made it up (which no-one believes they did) and explain why or, alternatively, confirm that they do indeed have a source from within the enquiry (who they will not, and don't have to, name) which has the effect described above.
Believe me, this is a major bollock dropped.