This article was a revelation for me. I think finally understand why the Brojos and so many others seem to think it's an ambiguous case. I don't have a lot of trust in the "story" method of making an argument, but now I understand why others find the story that goes along with the guilty verdict unconvincing.
Essentially, there is no story because nobody outside BTC knows how she got nandrolone in her system. She could have doped with it intentionally (although seemingly that would be ill-advised), she could have doped with a precursor, or with an illegal drug that was contaminated with nandrolone. She could have taken a supposedly-legal supplement that was contaminated with nandrolone (which would still cause a ban if proven).
Any of these is plausible, far more plausible than the burrito story. Nandrolone is one of the most common drugs for positive tests, after all. But we don't know which one it was, and we certainly don't know the surrounding details.
Meanwhile, Houlihan has a full story where each part is seemingly plausible, and ample corroboration of (unimportant) details and character witnesses. None of this actually "means" anything, but it changes the story. To tell the story that she is guilty, you have to admit that she told a full story, some of which we know to be true, but also that other parts aren't true and meanwhile she consumed nandrolone in some other specified way.
None of this is an out for Gault, the Brojos, and other journalists to keep muddying the waters here. The evidence is overwhelming that Houlihan illegally doped, regardless of what we know about "how". But given that I didn't understand these different ways of gauging truth, perhaps some of these writers didn't either. I would hope now that they'll reevaluate their credulity and write some pieces that are more true to the evidence.