Amidst the problem of speaking of "Cyriline" and "Theodorean": giving the detail of Eutyches accusing Bp. Eusebius of Nestorianism, without noting Bp. Eusebius' role while still a layman in publicly initiating the opposition to Nestorius' teaching (particularly when calling him a "disturbing character" "intriguing against Pope Dioscorus as he had intriguing against Eutyches," when he was conducting himself in those matters EXACTLY as he did against Nestorius)-therefore giving serious doubt to Eutyches' accusations against Bp. Eusebius as a Nestorian (or do you say "Theodorean"), which you mention, Father, seemingly to impute Bp. Eusebius' motives-somewhat skews the presentation. Especially as Pope St. Cyril, in his tome against Nestorius, singles out this role of Eusebius:
That we therefore think aright in affirming that God has been born according to the flesh for the salvation of all,.. God-inspired Scripture hath testified: but since to his most novel dogmas he opposes the truth and the very symbol of the Church's Faith, which the fathers once gathered together at Nicea through the illumination of the Spirit defined; he, fearing lest any should keep whole the Faith, instructed unto the Truth by their words, endeavours to calumniate it and alters the significance of the words, and dares to coin with false stamp the very force of its ideas. For while himself in the midst of the Church was using profane babblings, a certain man [i.e. Eusebius, the future bishop of Dorylaeum] of those who were of great piety and yet among the laity, but who had gathered within himself no mean learning, was moved with fervent and devout zeal and with piercing cry said that the Word Himself Who is before the ages endured a second Generation also, viz., that after the flesh and forth of a woman; the people being disturbed hereat, and the more part and wiser having honoured him with no mean praises, as pious and most full of wisdom and not imparticipate in uprightness of doctrine, the rest being mad against him, he [Nestorius] interrupting, straightway approves those whom by teaching his own he had destroyed, and whets his tongue against him [i.e. Eusebius] who could not endure his words, yea and against the holy fathers who have decreed for us the pious definition of the Faith which we have as an anchor of the soul both sure and steadfast, as it is written.http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/cyril_against_nestorius_01_book1.htm
"For (said he) [i.e. Nestorius] I rejoice at beholding your zeal; but from the thing itself is a clear confutation of what has been said by the pollution of this wretched man [i.e. Eusebius]; for whereof the births are two, two sons are they, but the Church knoweth one Son Christ the Lord."
Then there is the problem of asserting the bishop of the Home Synod of Constantinople did not understand Pope St. Cyril: Pope St. Cyril seems to also been proven as useful a symbol as Eutyches, no matter what he taught. It is rather odd to criticize Abp. St. Leo of Rome for not comprehending Eutyches' position after characterizing that position as "ambiguous." It is also problematic to criticize Abp. St. Flavian and Bp. Eusebius preparing to depose Eutyches, while praising Pope St. Cyril for doing the same thing at the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus, particularly as Eutyches was eventually anathematized by the non-Chalcedonians (hence the editing of the OO account of the Acts of Ephesus II: The criticism of the Greek text of Chalcedon, particularly as the Latin preserves what is criticized, is rather one sided given that the only OO version of Ephesus II omits the restoration of Eutyches in toto. Particularly when the Acts of Chalcedon are being condemned as being "edited to support a certain view").
It poses problems to claim that Abp. St. Flavian and Bp. Eusebius were deposed by Pope Dioscorus for Faith reasons independent of Eutyches' teachings, particularly when one is trying to exonerate Pope Dioscorus by condemning Abp. St. Flavian and Bp. Eusebius for "perverting the Faith" (or whatever phrase the podcast used). That would be very convenient from the OO view, but that is not what happened at Ephesus II, where neither the Faith at stake nor Abp. Flavian and Eusebius on trial, as is shown by comparing the the OO and EO recensions of the Acts of Ephesus II.
Somewhere here I got on pulling the quotes together from the various councils on Eutyches' claims on technicalities to avoid addressing the trial on the merits. I'll have to look if I finished and posted, or if they are buried in my drafts folder.