I only post as "rekrunner", and not as any alter egos.
I did not say "Not a single one of those five items would be necessary to get a positive test from her meal." That was "twoggle".
I also never said "item one had to happen", but that "It could easily happen". "facts are facts", said "has to have ... occurred", which I agreed, but perhaps too hastily now that you push back, because in light of a recent tennis player testing positive from nandrolone from beef, item #1 isn't necessarily required.
Since no one established the source, and no possibility can be ruled out, it is not contradictory to say that the nandrolone could have come from many possible sources, e.g. pork, beef, supplements, precursor, etc.
There was no CAS finding the nandrolone was synthetic. WADA, the AIU and the CAS do not use the term synthetic. WADA also considers -23‰ to be in the "endogenous" range, for both pigs and man. WADA does tell the labs a possible way to establish "The possible Use for doping purposes of 19-norsteroid preparations with a pseudo-endogenous carbon isotopic signature", but this was not done because it was considered optional. In other words, "exogenous" isn't a fact, but was presumed.
Houlihan didn't have six months. In fact, sample collection to CAS verdict took less than 6 months, including the AIU's nearly 3 month delay. Houlihan had asked for a 14 day extension, to Feb. 4th, to submit her response, and the AIU refused, suggesting alternatively they might be allowed to supplement their response later. Apparently Houlihan did get a 3 day extension, as on the 10th day, Jan. 25th, they submitted their response. Note the lab results from the vitamins and supplements, and the purchased burritos, only came back on Feb. 23rd.
You are accusing everyone else of not being so bright, but nothing you say is accurate, and you are drawing your conclusions from your own inaccurate statements.