Interesting post...
Good for you to realize your prejudgements and bias instead of applying science, data, and analytical thinking. The same methods should apply whether the athlete is an upper-middle class American white girl like Houlihan, or whether we are talking about the 50 impoverished Kenyans sanctioned for nandrolone between 2004 and 2018.
The questions surrounding Prof. Ayotte are not emotional or evil, but related to the published data in her peer-reviewed work (i.e. as much as 130 ng/ml and -23.6 per mille) versus what she represented to the CAS Panel was her experience (2.5 ng/ml is a max in the literature, and -18-21.5 per mille).
There are similar factual questions with Prof. McGlone's testimony, and how, despite conceding things were different during the pandemic, still arguing that nothing statistically changed.
In a criminal court, the AIU would have to gather much more "real" evidence specific to Houlihan to get a conviction. The burden on the AIU would not be so lax as permitted by WADA, especially after 2015 changes to the Code. In a real criminal court, the AIU would actually have to prove two points 1) that a crime actually occurred, and 2) that it was intentional.
The main issue that Houlihan faced is the same for all cases of potential accidental ingestion: the fairness of any athlete being required to establish the source of a banned substance and proving the nature of ingredients ingested more than one month in the past, without a sample to test. Athletes are expected to train and race, and should not have to become experts in the history of meat, supplement, or pharmaceutical industries, as to how these things are manufactured, produced, processed and distributed in their country.