This is like explaining things to children...
You are aware of something called the Single European Market/free movement of goods? Have you thought about what that means? It means that all products that go into that market have to do so under exactly the same terms, conditions, requirements, tarrifs etc between all of the member states and EFTA countries. If one country doesn't require pigs to be castrated in order to consume their pork products and other countries do, then its much cheaper for pig producers in (e.g. Denmark) not to castrate pigs intended for the first country. But that would mean that there is an effective trading advantage between the first country and Denmark which violates European competition law (which deals with an awful lot more than mergers and acquisitions). Its far more complicated than that but its unlikely you will comprehend the complexities.
If you think this is a "bunch of nonsense" then how can you possibly understand the complicated details of the the issue of boar taint in different markets and tainted samples? Some producers get round it by using skatot tests, others castrate later and some countries weren't even testing but simply smelling for boar taint. If you are seriously suggesting that lawyers for CAS in Switzerland aren't already experts in the issue of androstenone content of more than 0.5 μg/g in pig meat and that Nike or you think you have somehow reinvented the wheel when it has already taken the form of a far more advanced creation entirely, then you are both deluded.
You ask what the "trigger for updating the document" - literally everyone who deals with these sorts of issues is aware that there was a very contentious EU case on this very issue which required such changes to be made. Why haven't you done research on this? Its not as if there isn't loads of freely available information out there.
Then you go on to suggest that the burden of proof should be reversed (presumably retrospectively?) for this case, just because, well, it would be kind of convenient not to have the strict liability that applies to every other athlete. The onus of proof is on the athlete to prove an innocent reason for the high levels of nandrolone in the sample, not for the court to prove how it occurred. You are suggesting that strict liability be waived for one athlete, which would obviously give every other athlete convicted of doping a claim to have their case reversed and damages awarded and make it impossible to catch athletes with tainted samples unless they were actually caught physically doping or in possession of drugs. This is ridiculous and farcical and you are blinded by the notion that a fellow American can't possibly have doped or been caught doping.
Again, you ask why I think that coaches and athletes should be well educated on this specific risk? Why would you even ask this?- Its the fact that it would be so easy to consume a contaminated source of food unless you cook it yourself and buy it from a trusted source. Every professional athlete and coach knows this. Thats why they don't buy food from other than trusted sources,. Plenty of athletes are on record discussing how careful they are not to ingest anything they haven't cooked and prepared themselves or eaten from a trusted, reliable source. There have been enough doping bans blamed on contaminated drinks, supplements and food its farcical to suggest that Shelby Houlihan had never considered this.
Clearly this wasn't a trusted or reliable source, since Shelby Houlihan herself claims that it was the source of her failed samples and the boar taint excuse was the central part of her defence, so she clearly changed her mind about US products being free of boar taint and of high standards being ensured.
I don't think anyone seriously buys the excuse that a group of athletes devoted to maintaining low body fat all suddenly felt so hungry immediately after training that they decided to eat a fatty, greasy meal composed of meat! The excuse in itself is so implausible that it casts aspertions upon the guilt of those in that group who were involved.
Can I also suggest that if you want to make a serious argument, you don't use phrases like "bunch of nonsense" or "can we stop with" - you're not a kid in school.