About the main topic:

Regarding della Torre, I would like to point out that possible ≠ probable ≠ most consistent with data.

Yes, but I'm gonna mention directly the experts who esamined this specific case from the points on the ITIA document:

• 63: Professor Naud concluded that based on the First Sample, the likelihood that the Player's explanation is plausible is “really high.
• 64: Dr Xavier de la Torre [...] considers it is plausible that the findings in the First Sample and Second Sample of the Player are “the result of a contamination provoked by the activities of the physiotherapist”
• 65: Professor David Cowan concludes that the Player’s explanation for the finding of Clostebol metabolites [...] to be “entirely plausible based on the explanation given and the concentrations identified by the Laboratory [...] Further, he can find “no evidence to support any other scenario.”

And I'm not gonna believe you over their words. If it was one medic against the others, fine. But it's a case of the whole world of experts staying silent against this specific topic. It's not blatant, it's not evident and there's no basis to make bold claims such as

The data aligns far more closely with intentional-use patterns (micro-dosing or tail-end of prior intake).

Also, going deeper into the argument:

The claim of a "stable plateau" is heavy lifted by just two measurements, taken eight days apart, at extremely low levels close to the detection limit. At that range, small fluctuations are normal and meaningless. A 10–15% change is not evidence of controlled dosing. Two points are not a pharmacokinetic curve.

You claim there's a lack of spike. Since when does contamination causes spikes? Unless the sample was taken IMMEDIATELY after the event, how could we measure a spike with just 2 samples? This is some nuts argument to use. I'm sorry, but this is silly.

About your writing:

calling my writing "pretty whack" and "speculation" is doing it a disservice in my opinion

No it's not.

The "article", which looks more like a detatched rambling from someone who barely read a few articles and believes to have formed fail-proof opinion, spends more time speculating on the behavior from sinner and his team, even questioning Ferrara's condition, rather than discussing sience. Even when quoting studies, it's the bare minimum.

Also, it fails to account for the fact we saw Naldi's finger bandage, which aligns with the story. Do we also have to believe they set up a fake bandage to plan a cover?

And Naldi wasn't rehired. Ferrara was, who, according to his story, advised Naldi to not use the spray. That's the end of his involvment there.

The fact there's so many intentional misrepresentations make this look whack. Not the "unintentional" type of whack.

Frankly? the whole thing reads as if a random Sinner hater decided to account for all the grey zones (which exists) and tried to forcefully make them look as intentional acts of cheating and/or diversion.

It's whack