The article is humourously named, but there doesn't seem to any particular curse mentioned.
The authors describe a process of getting a accurate light curve, establishing that there is a 2.4 hour periodicity (showing the rotation of the asteroid). And, when this 2.4 hour signal is subtracted, they detect a weak secondary signal of 25.25h, which they interpret as being the result of a moon.
But,
T> he lack of mutual events (occultations and/or eclipses due to a satellite), leaves the issue of binarity still unresolved.
The lack of mutual events (occultations and/or eclipses due to a satellite), leaves the issue of binarity still unresolved.
Although this secondary period is within the realm of orbital periods seen for satellites of other binary systems, due to the noisiness of the data, we cannot consider it to be definitive. It would be appropriate to have future studies of this suspected binary system. It is time for others to take up the task of pushing this boulder up the mountain.
So the only "curse" is that they don't get definitive results, and moreover, they don't plan to follow-up this research. It's just a bit of "cute" and doesn't explain the gap between the radar observations and the "discovery" of a satellite.
The short paper is available online https://www.researchgate.net/publication/252604347_The_Curse_of_Sisyphus