Asbel Kiprop fights to clear his name in tribunal

What you need to know:

  • In his submission. Kigen singled out Kenyan-born Bernard Lagat of the USA, cyclist Virginia Luna and triathlon athlete Rodriquez Martinez, both of Spain, as cases in point.
  • Tests on sample ‘A’ and ‘B’ from same athlete yielded different results, athlete’s lawyer says in submission
  • Kigen indicated that IAAF Athletes Integrity Unit (AIU) turned down requests for retests for DNA aimed at proving that the samples belonged to Kiprop.
  • The claims come for the first time since Kiprop started his defence against suspension by IAAF following doping claims.

Tests on crucial ‘A’ and ‘B’ samples from suspended three-time World 1,500 metres champion, Asbel Kiprop, yielded different results, the athlete’s lawyer has said in his submissions to International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) Disciplinary Tribunal in London.

In his submissions to IAAF Disciplinary Tribunal in London on Thursday, Kiprop’s lawyer Katwa Kigen claimed that tests on the samples yielded different results despite the fact that the samples had been drawn from the same athlete at the same time and at the same laboratory.

Tests on the samples were however done at different laboratories and by different people.

Kigen indicated that IAAF Athletes Integrity Unit (AIU) turned down requests for retests for DNA aimed at proving that the samples belonged to Kiprop.

The claims come for the first time since Kiprop started his defence against suspension by IAAF following doping claims.

The ruling will be made on April 11, which is 21 days from the date of hearing. If found guilty, Kiprop will have another opportunity to appeal the ruling at the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

Kiprop has also faulted the process through which samples were collected from him. His lawyer Kigen claimed that the integrity of the process was in question because the athlete was notified in advance of an impending sample collection, contrary to doping regulations that require athletes to notify doping control officers of their whereabouts.

Kiprop, the 2008 Beijing Olympics 1500m champion was tentatively banned by AIU in May last year after testing positive to banned blood booster Erythropoietin (EPO) in out-of-competition test in Iten in November 2017.

“Tests on other athletes shows laboratories occasionally get mistaken conclusion that natural EPO is artificial. The tests are as fact matters of interpretation, and are relative and subjective,” Kigen argued on Thursday.

Kigen explained that other athletes whose initial tests turned positive for EPO had them overturned with help of their countries, but Kiprop didn't get that luxury.

In his submission. Kigen singled out Kenyan-born Bernard Lagat of the USA, cyclist Virginia Luna and triathlon athlete Rodriquez Martinez, both of Spain, as cases in point.

“The person, who collected the sample and also asked for money besides giving the irregular tip-off was withdrawn from the case and his role in the process left blank,” Kigen said in the submission. “This is also consistent with admission of fatal irregularity.”

Kigen submitted that no declaration was made that the vessel used to collect samples was clean, uncontaminated and not spiked as required in IAAF sample collection regulations.

Kigen explained that to date, World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada) whose accredited Laboratory was used to examine the sample stated that there were no results on Kiprop’s sample, which is a contradiction from IAAF/AIU’s alleged positive results.

“Asbel’s blood samples for November 22, 2017 being five days before the implicated November 27, 2017 tests do not support the alleged existence of EPO,” said Kigen “Neither does blood sample collected two days after November 29. If he had doped these samples of 22nd and 29th would have shown in blood passports.”

Kigen argued that the primary Doping Control Form (DCF) upon which AIU is relying on to make their case is false in parts, and misrepresentative in others, and incomplete in material details.

“The sample was sent and addressed initially to wrong address, other than the laboratory where it was meant to go for testing,” said Kigen, adding that despite being told IAAF/AIU would collect sample, Kiprop availed himself and gave his sample.

Welcome!

You're all set to enjoy unlimited Prime content.