Several "troubling omissions" have overshadowed the positive aspects of the Olympic Summit, the Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO) has claimed today.
Ahead of the Summit, iNADO accused the International Olympic Committee (IOC) of "losing the anti-doping battle at Rio", having opted against handing Russia a blanket ban from the Games over allegations of state-sponsored drug use.
iNADO - the international member association of National Anti-Doping Organisations - called on the IOC to "redeem themselves" and urged the organisation to acknowledge Richard McLaren's World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) funded report into Russian doping as being "well-documented and reliable findings and not mere allegations".
The absence of an acknowledgment of the report is viewed by iNADO as one of the "omissions" from the declaration which was agreed at the Summit here in Lausanne yesterday.
Additionally, the institute claimed that there was "nothing explicit about state-sponsored doping in Russia, or about the moral responsibility of the IOC to push Russian sport and sport leaders to necessary cultural change in that country".
The declaration, in the view of iNADO, was also missing any deploring of the cyber-attacks on WADA carried out by the Fancy Bears hacking group, which resulted in the leak of confidential information relating to a string of athletes.
This represented the "illegal abuse of the privacy of clean athletes", iNADO said.
"The International Olympic Committee’s track record since the release of the McLaren Report has only confounded the global anti-doping system," said Joseph de Pencier, chief executive of iNADO today.
"With this latest declaration, the IOC only comes part way to restoring its credibility for the clean athletes of the world."
Among the recommendations outlined in the declaration was for a new anti-doping testing authority to be set up within the framework of WADA, with claims this would lead to a "clear segregation of duties between the regulatory and the testing bodies".
Sanctions relating to doping cases would also be delegated to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), rather than WADA, if the recommendations are adopted.
It is not yet clear whether CAS or WADA would have control over declaring if countries are non-compliant with the WADA Code.
Central to the declaration was a claim that the Olympic Movement would be ready to contribute increased financing for WADA, maintaining their 50/50 funding of the organisation along with national Governments.
However, the increase in finances crucially "depends on the implementation of the reforms by WADA and is based on the results provided by WADA after the review of the anti-doping system".
Elsewhere, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) will be asked if they can provide model legislation which would make the entourage of athletes criminally responsible for facilitating doping.
Coaches, doctors and physiotherapists would be among the officials who could be sanctioned in the event the legislation is adopted worldwide.
iNADO have stated that there are "constructive and encouraging principles" in the declaration, listing the requirement for anti-doping to be independent, enhanced funding for WADA and improved support for whistleblowers as steps in the right direction.
A call for WADA to "maintain and enhance its regulatory role with strengthened governance, more clarity in anti-doping organisation roles and responsibilities, and more standardised testing among IFs to produce better anti-doping equality for athletes around the world", was also praised.
However, the institute claim several principles would still need to be clarified.
"This must mean under WADA’s regulatory jurisdiction, which should go without saying," iNADO wrote in response to the recommendation for the new anti-doping testing authority.
"However, some will see this as a call for WADA to operate a new testing unit.
"But it would be a clear conflict of interest for WADA to do so and then regulate its own operations."
The institute also said that clarification was needed regarding a recommendation calling for the anti-doping system to be "more independent from national interests", with WADA given "stronger authority over National Anti-Doping Organisations (NADOs)".
"WADA already has extensive authority to oversee NADOs, as well as International Federation and Major Event Organisation anti-doping programmes, when it comes to compliance with the World Anti-Doping Code," the iNADO statement said.
"If what the IOC means is that WADA should have the authority to deal with state-sponsored doping, and how it corrupts a national anti-doping programme, and what the Russian state did to the Russian NADO, then iNADO agrees wholeheartedly.
"But why not say so to make it clear that WADA should have this additional jurisdiction?
"Why not propose specific changes to the Code to make this a reality?"
The recommendations are due to be discussed by WADA at their Foundation Board meeting on November 20.
Prior to the meeting, the second McLaren report is due to be published, believed to be at the end of October.
iNADO claim that if the report details "considerably more conclusive evidence" of the "corruption" of Russian anti-doping, then it will be "even clearer that the IOC has much more to do to protect clean athletes as an absolute priority".
The Olympic Summit had been billed as a key step in order to pave the way to "a more robust, more efficient and more independent worldwide anti-doping system".
insidethegames has asked the IOC if they would like to respond to iNADO's statement.