In February 2018 the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) has reported anti-doping rule violations against the Kenyan Athlete Asbel Kiprop after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Erythropoietin (EPO).
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the IAAF Disciplinary Tribunal.
The Athlete denied the charges and provided various possible explanations for the positive test results:
- The EPO was naturally produced due to altitude training in November 2017;
- The medication used prior to the sample collection and mentioned on the Doping Control Form;
- Irregularities occurred during the sample collection procedure;
- He was victim of spiking or sample substitution;
- There was a breach of the chain of custody;
- The analytical prodedures of the samples were incorrect.
The Panel considered the evidence in this case provided by the parties and concludes that:
1.) Analysis of the Athlete’s A and B samples showed the presence of EPO;
2.) The Athlete had no valid TUE that justifies the presence or use of EPO;
3.) The IAAF expert evidence shows that hypoxia of altitude and intense physical training can’t explain the presence of exogenous EPO in de samples;
4.) None of the medications mentioned by the Athlete on the Doping Control Form contains EPO and none of them could have caused the Adverse Analytical Finding;
5.) The Athlete failed to demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that a departure from the ISL occurred and that this departure could reasonably have caused EPO to be present in the samples.
6.) The presence of EPO in the A Sample was confirmed by the analysis of the B sample. The Adverse Analytical Finding was also subject to review and second opinion in accordance with the Technical Document and the finding was confirmed;
7.) The Laboratory conducted the sample analysis and custodial procedures in accordance with the ISL;
8.) The Athlete failed to show with evidence that a departure from the ISL occurred;
9.) Although there has been a departure from the ISTI in this case, this departure did not cause, and could not reasonably have caused the presence of EPO in the samples;
10.) The presence of EPO in the samples therefore remains as valid evidence in support of the charge against the Athlete for the presence and use of EPO.
Consequently the Panel is comfortable satisfied that the Athlete has committed the anti-doping rule violations for presence and use of a prohibited substance and failed to produce any evidence that these violations were not intentional.
Therefore the IAAF Disciplinary Tribunal decides on 10 April 2019 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 3 February 2018.
In the included Annex the Panel Chairman determined in the proceedings about various applications filed by the Athlete.
Here the Chairman determined that:
- The IAAF Athletics Intergrity Unit (AIU) has jurisdiction to prosecute this case;
- The admission of additional exhibits enclosed with the applications, and the extention of time for the filing of the applications have been agreed and acted on;
- There are no grounds to strike the Doping Control Form from the record on the basis that it is “false and misleading”;
- Reanalysis of the A and B samples is rejected since no departure of the ISL has been established;
- There are insufficient grounds to conduct a DNA analysis on the Athlete’s A and B sample;
- There is no sufficient purpose in producting the urine and blood test findings for samples collected from the Athlete between October 2017 and January 2018.
Accordingly the Athlete’s applications were dismissed on 18 July 2018.
