Not desperate, but thorough.
Recall the CAS Panel is a group of lawyers and law professors, and not scientists expert in the domain, and they had incomplete information before them and conflicting expert reports about what the evidence means. The CAS findings may or may not be factual, depending on the completeness of the evidence supporting them, while considering the evidence contradicting them. If the CAS arrived at the wrong decision based on incomplete facts, this would include some of their intermediate findings too.
Recall also that my initial concern here was the lack of any alternative case that she intentionally doped with exogenous nandrolone that would justify the general public calling her a "drug cheat". If the source was not pigs, where are the competing arguments and evidence making the case for alternative sources? In one interview, USADA chief thought supplements were more likely, competing with what the WA expert Ayotte said she could duplicate using a product found on Amazon. Neither of these alternatives were explored or established beyond these speculative suggestions.
But since you still insist on relitigatating the failures of the process leading to the CAS findings and decisions:
1 - I didn't forget what was argued before by one poster, but simply wasn't compelled then or now. In any case, even if we ignore the list of ingredients which were not properly identified nor excluded, you are still wrong, as the CAS clearly heard "fat" and "chorizo", and heard from WA expert Prof. McGlone that "fat" is an ingredient highly concentrated in nandrolone. The WA experts failed to address these other ingredients that were before the CAS. Furthermore, I assume the detailed CAS report is incomplete for up to 4 reasons from 4 parties: 1) the WADA Code 2015 was crafted by lawyers for easy convictions rather than fact-finding on the athlete's behalf; 2) the delay in notification was too long for Houlihan to preserve evidence, and the remaining time was too short for Houlihan to be able to collect any available "specific and concrete elements" (if it was even possible) in order to argue every angle or alternative with evidence; 3) the WA experts were selective in their rebuttals, dutifully representing WA, one of the parties in a dispute, not to mention self-interested in protecting the Montreal lab's reputation, leaving out helpful or exculpatory information; and/or 4) the CAS report itself is a selected summary of the events, as told by the CAS in their own words, and also leaves out important information (e.g. minority panel opinion how the WADA Lab deviated from its own guidelines). So contrary to the "CAS report is too long", I would prefer to see original transcripts and evidence and some of the unwritten opinions, rather than rehashing what little has been made public.
2 - There are reasons to doubt whether this panel finding is applicable to Houlihan. Her CIR result is consistent with diets of soy, as Prof McGlone conceded was temporarily applicable, and as argued by Houlihan's experts before the CAS. This also leads me to yet another reason to doubt Prof. Ayotte's completeness and accuracy of testimony to the CAS, as in 2002, she published that "the mean value of endogenous urinary steroids in our laboratory is found at around -23.5 (ranging from -19.8 to -26.8)" and "further to the ingestion of un-castrated pork offal indicate that the 13C content was not distinguishable from the normal values found in humans, being measured at around -23.6".
3 - According to one article on the topic, the backlog of pigs to be slaughtered by June was 3.2 million pigs, before the industry started bouncing back. These pigs were already older than 6 months in June. Even during the bounce back, capacity was reduced due to workers' illness during a pandemic. The backlog lasted between June and mid-September, with National Pork Producers Council estimating another 10 million pigs exceeding industry capacity in that timeframe. If I do the math, any pigs slaughtered in September could have been as much as 9-12 months old, and not 6-months as assumed by Prof. McGlone in his testimony before the CAS.
4 - "mute" - cute. I'm not focused on the case result of a streamlined process based on incomplete information, as I am at finding out the relevant facts -- including the missing facts not before the CAS. In any case, the case was lost earlier, when the CAS split on the question of whether Prof. Ayotte's lab deviated from the WADA test reporting guidelines when it reported the values as an AAF. The minority decision that it was not properly an AAF would render the question of boar consumption likeliness "mute", as the next step would be more testing. In a weird quirk of the WADA Code 2015, the whole discussion of whether the burrito contained nandrolone cannot change the guilty verdict, but was an attempt by Houlihan to reduce the sanction for the violation to 2 years (or less) for non-intentional doping.
And again, the CAS result, and all subsequent discussions, falls far short of beginning to address my initial expressed concern -- that even today, with all we know, it is still too early to call Houlihan a "drug cheat" as neither the WA nor the CAS (nor Ross Tucker) established that Houlihan intentionally doped with exogenous nandrolone.