The evidence was absolutely conclusive: she doped, and not via the burrito route. Confirmed by WADA, AIU, WA, CAS, the Swiss Supreme Court (which you weirdoes call kangaroo), Tucker, and Tygart etc. Not a single neutral voice that says otherwise. Not a single piece of evidence that says otherwise.
2 presumptions? LOL. You keep going on about that, but have no reason to.
"Presumption 1": the lab did not screw up the drug test. Normal procedure in each and every case. Not exactly unheard of in other cases. Neither unique to this doper or to WADA. Like when you get caught driving drunk. But according to you, we mustn't call drunk drivers drunk drivers, because it is only presumed that the lab didn't screw up the drug test. Of course there is no evidence that the lab screwed up the test.
"Presumption 2": since the (synthetic!) nandro wasn't in her beef burrito, she doped intentionally. Normal procedure in each and every case. Not exactly unheard of in other cases. Neither unique to this doper or to WADA. Like when you get caught driving drunk, and no one believes that you just ordered orange juice (and didn't taste the booze). But according to you, we mustn't call drunk drivers drunk drivers, because it is only presumed that you drank intentionally. Of course there is no evidence that the drug was in the juice.
Or - a better example for you high schoolers, when you claim the dog ate your homework (and your mom doesn't have one!), you get punished although it is only presumed that you did it on purpose. Sound familiar?
Grow up. There are so many other cases where you can troll with exactly the same "arguments" - why always for this doper?