It means that if your appeal to Leonard as an expert was faulty. No connection there, it's just bad reasoning.
Your reasoning on undetectable chemical x shifts the burden of proof to the athlete who does well instead of the person who proposes the chemical, and violates legal procedure, "normal" common sense and the classical Occam's Razor. If it's like that, the burden of proof for the existence of God lies with the doubters instead of the people who say there is a god.
So you say that scientists constantly invent undetectable chemicals, Ye deserves suspicion for being impressive and coming from a country with a history of doping, and the simplest solution is better. The simplest solution to explain impressive performance combined with undetectable chemicals and a country with a history of doping is doping. Therefore guilty until proven innocent.
I took your reasoning and showed that using your own criteria of an undetectable chemical, impressive performance, and countries with a history of doping, and the simplest solution is better, you would have to pronounce Bolt, Phelps, Ledecky etc all guilty until they prove themselves innocent.
I don't think you're capable of going online and criticizing these athletes constantly until they're proven innocent, and the root of the inconsistency is bigotry. If you can, I have no problems with you.