Athletics Integrity Unit Statement in Response to Public Statement of Mr Asbel Kiprop
published on 04 May 2018
4th May 2018
The Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) notes the public statement made yesterday by Mr Asbel Kiprop in relation to a matter that is currently pending under the IAAF Anti-Doping Rules.
In response to Mr Kiprop's public statement, the AIU confirms that recombinant erythropoietin (“EPO”) was detected in a urine sample collected from Mr Kiprop on 27 November 2017. On 3 February 2018, Mr Kiprop was notified of the Adverse Analytical Finding and on 20 February 2018, Mr Kiprop was informed that the "B" sample analysis had confirmed the Adverse Analytical Finding. On 16 March 2018, Mr Kiprop was charged with violations of the IAAF Anti-Doping Rules and the matter is currently proceeding before the independent IAAF Disciplinary Tribunal.
In the course of these proceedings, Mr Kiprop has made a number of public allegations in relation to the sample collection process. These allegations have been investigated by the AIU. The AIU is satisfied that there has been no mix up or tampering with the Sample and that the Sample collected from the Athlete on 27 November 2017 was the same Sample analysed by the Laboratory and reported as an Adverse Analytical Finding.
The AIU has confirmed that the Doping Control Assistant involved in testing Mr Kiprop on 27 November 2017 (who is known to Mr Kiprop) admitted that he provided Mr Kiprop with advanced notice of the testing that was to take place on that date. This is extremely disappointing. The AIU has submitted to the Tribunal that these actions may constitute a departure from the requirements of the International Standard for Testing and Investigations (“ISTI”). Under the Rules, a departure from the requirements of the ISTI will only invalidate an Adverse Analytical Finding if that departure could reasonably have caused the Adverse Analytical Finding. The advanced notice of testing given by the Doping Control Assistant could not reasonably have caused EPO to be present in Mr Kiprop’s Sample and, as such, the departure does not invalidate the Adverse Analytical Finding. This will ultimately be a matter for the Tribunal to determine.
Mr Kiprop alleges that the confidentiality of the proceedings was breached by the AIU. This allegation is rejected. The AIU has fully adhered to the principle of confidentiality throughout.
In relation to Mr Kiprop’s allegation that he was offered a "reward" of being an IAAF ambassador on anti-doping, this is also rejected. Prior to the commencement of the disciplinary proceedings AIU investigators met with Mr Kiprop. The purpose of the meetings was to notify him of the positive test and give him the opportunity to admit any offence promptly or to provide information about doping in athletics that could amount to “substantial assistance”. This is standard practice for the AIU when serious doping substances have been detected in any sample. Any suggestion that there was anything improper about this conversation is categorically untrue.