That’s a great point, regarding World Aquatics not being the subject of any where near as much criticism as WADA. I understand that in this case they were notified too.

I am not at a computer today so unable to write a proper response to trails great reply which certainly deserves one, but my understanding is that technically speaking (1) as it was a contamination CHINADA did not regard it as an anti doping violation and (2) WADA have a policy at least for the last decade or so, to not take matters further to CAS to query cases like that which may in the end only obtain a no fault anti doping violation.

So in this case Chinada is the relevant anti doping organisation (ADO) - trail , that is my understanding

I understand that here WADA did their own investigation of the material forwarded to them and in a kind of negatively expressed conclusion did not find anything that could lead them to reject the CHINADA explanation. The independent review going on will be interesting.

obviously there are two issues here - what the current rules say and whether these were followed, and what the current rules should say. In cases of contamination (and potentially this example is not the most clear example or one that universally fills people will confidence) I wonder whether it is right for there to be reforms and public disclosure. It’s hugely damaging to the reputations of all involved.

If you haven’t had the chance I learnt a lot from reading the WADA press release