Maybe I missed the post, but I'm amazed that people are glossing over these points from the ruling (pg. 8) -
"the concentration of 19-NA in the Athlete’s urine was 2-3 times higher than the highest values reported in the scientific literature after the ingestion of much more significant quantities of meat of mature (uncastrated) boar (differently from the alleged cryptorchid in question that would have been slaughtered after 6 months).
More importantly...
"In this instance, the analytical result (including the Athlete’s carbon isotope signature) is entirely consistent with the use of oral nandrolone (prohormones) that are known to exist on the market."
I mean, come on people! 2-3x than what would be found if she had eaten boar offal AND consistent with what would be found in orally-taken nandrolone? She's is guilty as hell, and I'm astonished anyone is still defending her at this point.