100%. It is confusing to me how we manage to have the full decisions for almost all the ad hoc meetings of CAS from the Olympic period published, but somehow a decision made in over two months ago now is still nowhere to be found.
E.g. Here is the full decision on the Alex Wilson case, the Swiss 100m sprinter who tested positive for trenbolone.
https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Award_CAS_OG_20-06-08__FINAL__.pdf
Wilson tested positive from a test on March 15th. Between March 15th (the test), and early August (the decision was up at least a week ago when I checked), the various legal and anti-doping institutions relevant to the case managed to...
Test both A and B samples and institute a provisional suspension by April 28th (44 days).
Receive appeal against said provisional suspension by Wilson by May 7th (53 days)
Swiss Olympic Committee accept appeal against provisional suspension pending further investigation (May 18th).
Swiss Anti-Doping accept this injunction by May 31st (77 days)
SOC and Swiss Anti-Doping make final decision, accepting contaminated meat argument from Wilson (July 2nd).
World Athletics and WADA file an appeal against this decision by July 22nd (129 days).
CAS panel of arbitrators selected to manage the file by July 23rd (130 days).
CAS panel of arbitrators hear submissions and issue decision overturning SOC and Swiss anti-doping decision, and so banning Wilson, by July 27th (134 days).
By second week of August, a full written decision with summary of facts, timeline, and discussion on points of law published (less than 150 days).
Conversely, Houlihan tested positive on December 15th 2020. Here we are, 250+ days later and still no full decision published. Not to mention how much longer many aspects of the case took to get moving in comparison. We have some idea of the timeline, but only from Houlihan's own lawyer who, you know, people are gonna take whatever he says with a grain of salt.
The cases are almost identical. An athlete tests positive for a banned substance in OOC testing. Athlete defence is that it was ingested through contaminated meat (Wilson claimed he ate a kilo of ox tongue and 6 burgers at a Jamaican restaurant over two days!). Why the drastically different timelines?
My hot take prediction is the key difference and explanation is that the AIU is incompetent and nearly screwed up their own case by not following their own procedures as closely as they should (hence why there was dissent on the panel on the point of the ADRV being properly managed). This added a legal layer of complexity to the case that wasn't present in the Wilson case which was a simple question of the SOC/SAD applying the wrong legal test in their decision and CAS simply overturning it.