The CAS "finding" of an intentional ADRV lives completely on presumption. The CAS ruled so itself -- explicitly basing both of its rulings on two presumptions derived from the WADA Code.
Contrary to your simpleton explanation, a positive test doesn't establish a violation per se, but can be considered an ATF (no violation) or an AAF (violation).
The CAS Panel was not unanimous on that decision.
If there are doubts about CAS' independence, or the fairness of the WADA Code to innocent athletes, doubts that Tygart has repeatedly raised -- this split becomes highly relevant when evaluating if a CAS ruling using a process defined by the WADA Code arrived at the right outcome.
The Code is broken here in several ways:
- The WADA procedures and TDs are clearly ambiguous on this point, as evidenced by the non-unanimous CAS Panel ruling. The TD clearly says that the "isotope" analysis may not be used to determine exogenous origin, while elsewhere saying it must be reported.
- It sets up the dispute between Houlihan, who is obliged to argue with specific and concrete elements regarding a long past scenario with the primary evidence consumed, destroyed or discarded, and the AIU, who can argue with their own non-specific and non-concrete speculation, with no real obligation to tell the truth, or the whole truth.
- Proving her innocence does no such thing -- the guilty verdict doesn't depend on whether presence was intentional or not, and proving not intentional preserves the guilty verdict, but just reduces the sanction.