The basic flaw of WADA is lack of transparency, accountability and contest ability.
There would be few rules- based systems where those subject to the rules - the athletes- have had no role in constructing the rules, their application and development.
Consultation is minimal and with a pool selected by WADA.
Worse, those rules impose conditions which circumscribe their rights under their own law.
What other system imposes the burden of proof on the defendant party, , in that they cannot contest that WADA has applied its own rules - that two of three criteria ( health, performance enancment , spirit of sport) - as a precondition for WADA banning a substance or method.?
The athlete has no legal redress in the event that WADA breaks it own rules.
The athlete also has no legal redress if CAS gets the facts wrong and relies on the wrongful assertion to reach its decision.
Governments can redress those injustices through concerted effort, Including through their membership and funding of WADA and, importantly, through UNESCO doping control treaty
I trust the symposium will tease out these issues. I am not holding my breath that the Hunt review will touch on any of them