In the latest move in the Brazilian doping scandal, no surprise to find that coach Hugo Lobo, like his swimmer and Dr Renata Castro, attacked Dr Eduardo De Rose, the WADA member who ordered DNA tests to be conducted on urine samples provided by Gusmao in July after suspecting foul play.

That accusation has serious implications for WADA, which may be forced to hold its own inquiry even if Gusmao's suspension is confirmed by the Court of Arbitration in the weeks beyond her hearing in Lausanne this week.

Dr Castro resigned as medical officer for the Brazilian swimming confederation in the wake of revelations that Gusmao had failed an anti-doping test for the second time in just over a year. On both occasions, elevated levels of testosterone - which, experts say, was produced by external means and was not naturally occurring - was the cause of the positive result.

Marcos Cipriani, the man in charge of the crimes against public health body (Delegacia de Repressão a Crimes Contra a Saúde Pública in Rio) charged with investigating a case of potential fraud, is said to have been persuaded by De Rose that there was a case to answer but is now reported to have been persusaded by Gusmao, in six hours of testimony, that she is innocent - at least as far as attempting to provide someone else's urine instead of her own in at least one control on July 12 and 18 during the Pan Am Games.

While 'convinced' by Gusmao's arguments, Cipriano has not yet indicated whether he feels the same about the swimmer's entourage. His report will be handed to the Ministry of Public Affairs on Tuesday, apparently without recommending that scalps should be taken. The ministry then has a right to call for further hearings and interviews of its own.

Should there be no domestic action against Gusmao, Lobo or Castro, the spotlight will fall on De Rose and the accusations levelled against him. There are many in swimming who believe De Rose was right to be suspicious but whether he has acted correctly or not in this case is something that WADA itself may be forced to judge - and do so in the most open fashion possible lest it be seen as a closed house in which experts can say and do as they please without being accountable.

Cipriano was told by Gusmao and team that De Rose had set out to persecute the swimmer. She is reported as having told the inquiry: 'Lots of times, De Rose has questioned me about my muscle mass, which is beyond his powers'.

Not so, in fact. If people like De Rose and other experts did not look at the world with a critical eye, in the way that a criminal pathologist must look at the world, how could WADA and other bodies hope to conduct intelligent, incisive, meaningful testing? Blanket testing is not only very costly but is inefficient and about as worthy a process as pulling grandma out of the check-in queue to frisk her as a terrorist suspect about to bring down a 747 because she had nail scissors in her handbag. Active pursuit of athletes without sound reason for doing so cannot, of course, be condoned. But without an intelligent approach to testing that relies on experts being able to judge where darkness may lie, swimming returns to the days of the GDR and China in the 1990s where those who first spoke of suspicions were treated with disdain, while those who cheated got away with it, in the case of the GDR. In the case of China, the house of doping was brought down by intelligent action by the likes of Professor Malcolm Cameron and others. If he had not been allowed to observe critically, to soak up the evidence before his eyes and then pursue a line of enquiry, China too would have got away with it.

Asked if she felt that her career was over, Gusmao answered: 'If its over, its over. But my conscience is clear.' Her lawyer then made the team's excuses and left, saying that the swimmer was late for her plane to Lausanne - and a destiny with the judgement she or De Rose will have to live with.