From a legal point of view, there were no grounds for withdrawing the status of Russian anti-doping agency RUSADA because last year, the agency successfully passed WADA’s audits twice and it was recognised as one of the best in the world in its indicators. Therefore, RUSADA’s status was temporarily suspended on a formal far-fetched pretext. All databases and test tubes were transferred back to WADA in early 2019. Further studies were conducted without a Russian presence, contrary to international legal procedures, which makes the decision illegal, unreasonable and requires an objective review by the International Sports Arbitration Court.
The Douma mission’s initial report questioned the source of the gas cylinders and was unable to explain the apparent minimal damage on it that was inconsistent with the allegations of the cylinders being dropped from the air.
The draft report drew attention to the inconsistency of the image of the victims with the chemical gas used in the alleged attack, and the samples did not indicate any presence of nerve gas or chemical weapons.
Recurring disinformation narratives aiming to discredit the OPCW.
An OPCW press statement confirms that "all information was taken into account, deliberated, and weighed when formulating the final report regarding the incident in Douma." The OPCW Technical Secretariat is conducting an internal investigation about the unauthorised release of the document in question.
Regardless of the leaked document's authenticity, its conclusion that the cylinders could not have been dropped from helicopters has been addressed in the actual OPCW report on Douma (Annex 6, pp. 55-56);
Furthermore, the previous documents claim that the draft said the signs and symptoms of alleged victims were "not consistent with poisoning from chlorine". This has been presented in a way that suggests the draft ruled out a chlorine attack on those grounds. However, the draft only says that some of the signs and symptoms were not consistent with chlorine and draws no firm conclusion about them.
See here for a point-by-point disproof by Bellingcat.