More relevant papers:
"Neutrinos Must Be Tachyons" (1997)
Abstract: The negative mass squared problem of the recent neutrino experiments from the five major institutions prompts us to speculate that, after all, neutrinos may be tachyons. There are number of reasons to believe that this could be the case. Stationary neutrinos have not been detected. There is no evidence of right handed neutrinos which are most likely to be observed if neutrinos can be stationary. They have the unusual property of the mass oscillation between flavors which has not been observed in the electron families. While Standard Model predicts the mass of neutrinos to be zero, the observed spectrum of Tritium decay experiments hasn't conclusively proved that the mass of neutrino is exactly zero. Based upon these observations and other related phenomena, we wish to argue that there are too many inconsistencies to fit neutrinos into the category of ordinary inside light cone particles and that the simplest possible way to resolve the mystery of the neutrino is to change our point of view and determine that neutrinos are actually tachyons.
This guy seems like someone a competent science journalist would be interviewing. I can't say I understand much of it, unfortunately.
Tachyonic neutrinos can explain SN 1987A neutrinos beating photons to Earth, and tachyonic neutrinos can explain the CERN observations, but, critically, they cannot explain both phenomena simultaneously. The SN 1987A neutrinos apparently moved slower than the CERN neutrinos, when the pure tachyonic explanation would have them move faster than the CERN neutrinos.
This isn't to say neutrinos couldn't be tachyons, but it would still leave the CERN data requiring an explanation.
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110922/full/news.2011.554.html
http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897v1
http://usersguidetotheuniverse.com/?p=2169
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3027056
Perhaps the end of the era of the light cone and beginning of the era of the neutrino cone? I'd be curious to see your probability estimates for whether this theory pans out. Or other crackpot hypotheses to explain the results.