The principle here is "innocent until proven guilty", and not commenting on on-going cases is a principle that should cause the least reputational harm to innocent athletes.(quote).
The principle in doping is "guilty until proven innocent" - that is how it works. It isn't an "ongoing case", it is a final decision by CAS. You can choose to comment on it - but you won't, because that would mean addressing a judicial determination of guilt - and you would never acknowledge that the athlete in question has doped. The "least reputational harm to innocent athletes" is that they don't dope. Some - as we see - do.
1) Houlihan's "story" is not incompatible with the findings of the AIU and CAS.(quote)
Yes it is - otherwise they would not have found against her.
In Article 2.1 and 2.2 "it is not necessary that intent, Fault, Negligence or knowing Use on the Athlete’s part be demonstrated in order to establish an anti-doping rule violation". (quote)
In a hundred or more threads I have never seen anyone point out this astonishing fact, that it makes no difference if Houlihan didn't intend to dope.
4) Studies show that eating the wrong pork can raise levels above the WADA threshold "naturally".(quote)
Not to the levels found in Houlihan, which is why CAS rejected this argument. It turns out it wasn't pork anyway. Wrong menu.
.. every athlete should be on notice, that seemingly normal behavior can be perceived as "significantly risky" in a WADA/CAS context, and should not be "manifestly disregarded".(quote)
Seemingly normal behaviour is clearly significantly risky, because so many athletes seem to be eating contaminated burritos. Of course the greater risk is simply to ingest nandrolone, like she did.
"Strict liability" may sound like a good idea for catching the worst offenders, but it does place a rather high burden on the athlete, not only to defend against anti-doping charges after an AAF, but for every decision that they make both in and out of competition, for keeping logs and receipts and other evidence that may be handy in a hearing, for things that would be ordinary behavior for non-athletes.[/quote]
It is so hard for them to keep illegal substances out of their bodies.
-----‐-------
In all that expert analysis above we have had 'insights' into a variety of matters, mostly procedural, but are no closer to knowing whether or not the writer thinks Houlihan was guilty. That is a determination he must assiduously avoid - even if CAS hasn't shied away from it.