The study, or should I say, "survey" was hardly rigorous, even by their own admission. While it does point out the patently obvious chasm between product hype and quality studies to back up those claims, the articles don't tell us where the solid work has been done. In very broad strokes covering every aspect of sports products, from kinesiology tape and wrist bands to electrolyte caps and shoes, everything falls in their dumpster.
Even lacking double-blind, sample bias corrected rigour, many studies show valid evidence of product efficacy. I agree that added rigour is welcome, but not necessary for a company to begin sales. Once a product is shipping, a company may not want a more rigourous inquiry that may expose weakness in their hype. That's the job of the independent researchers.
An example of unnecessary censorship is in the BBC article describing urine color's use as an indicator of hydration. They poo-poo the technique because of the lack of quality studies and the individual variances that make it unreliable. Tell me, is your urine lighter when you drink a lot?
Which brings up an interesting point about what research gets funded and who pays for it. In his book, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", Kuhn makes the case that scientific inquiry is directed towards what the money will fund and will pass over what doesn't get funded. A case in point is global warming. It would be very difficult to fund a study to test a hypothesis that suggests man's CO2 production is not to blame. (Not my view, just showing an example)
What I really would like is an independent, comprehensive survey of what claims can be relied on, particularly with respect to nutrition and supplements, rather than an assessment that focuses on the garbage out there.