Asbel Kiprop was warned he was to have a drug test, admits AIU after EPO failure

The Athletics Integrity Unit has admitted that the Kenyan 1500m runner Asbel Kiprop was warned he was to have a drug test in advance – in violation of World Anti-Doping Agency rules – but has rejected his sensational claim that the failed sample was tampered with and EPO was added to it.

The body also dismissed suggestions from Kiprop, a three-time world champion and former Olympic champion, that he had been offered an ambassadorship with athletics’ governing body, the IAAF, if he accepted a doping ban.

The AIU did not, however, respond to claims from Kiprop that he had given money to doping control officers when they carried out his test in November 2017.

In a statement, the AIU confirmed for the first time that EPO had been detected in Kiprop’s sample on 27 November 2017, that he was notified about the failed test on February 3, and he was charged with violating the IAAF anti-doping rules on 16 March.

It also rejected Kiprop’s key accusation that his sample had been tampered with by doping control officers, saying it had been investigated and rejected. “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.”

However it did admit that Kiprop had been told about the test the night before, which is a violation of Wada rules. “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 said that despite this, it believed that his positive test would not be reversed – although it conceded that it would be up to a tribunal to decide. It also rejected Kiprop’s claim that the confidentiality of the proceedings had been breached by the AIU, and said that Kiprop was wrong to claim that he was offered a “reward” of being an IAAF ambassador on anti-doping.

It added: “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 denied.”