The Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) has taken a decisive step in the case of Kenyan athlete Diana Chepkorir, aged 23, after identifying an adverse finding in her Athlete Biological Passport (ABP). The AIU, which enforces World Athletics’ anti-doping rules, determined that 13 samples collected between May 2024 and March 2025 showed abnormalities consistent with “probable doping.”

If confirmed, the consequences could drastically alter her career. All results obtained since 25 June 2024 would be annulled, and a four-year suspension could be imposed under the current sanctioning framework of World Athletics and the World Anti-Doping Code.

How an ABP case works

Chepkorir’s samples were analyzed in laboratories accredited by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and reviewed by an independent panel of experts. This protocol is standard in the ABP system, which monitors biological markers over time to detect indirect evidence of doping. Unlike a traditional test that yields a single positive or negative result, the ABP evaluates longitudinal data. When significant deviations are detected, a panel of experts is convened to review the findings and manage the results accordingly.

Following the notification on 4 June 2025, the AIU opened response deadlines and granted extensions. In parallel, the Unit must substantiate the chain of custody, laboratory validity, and consistency of expert reports. If the panel upholds the finding of “probable doping,” formal charges may follow, leading to a mandatory provisional suspension. The athlete can then either accept the consequences or request a hearing.

What it means for the athlete beyond the verdict

From a sporting perspective, a suspension means ineligibility to compete in events governed by the Code and the retroactive disqualification of results from the date established by the ruling, including the loss of medals, points, and prize money. World Athletics regulations also foresee the return of prize money and its redistribution to those who would have earned it in the absence of the violation.

Personally and financially, such proceedings often entail significant legal, reputational, and contractual costs, including possible breaches of sponsor agreements, reimbursement obligations, and ineligibility until ordered amounts are repaid. While each case differs, the regulatory framework establishes that athletes remain ineligible to compete if outstanding amounts are unpaid.

Internal consequences for World Athletics and the AIU

For World Athletics and the AIU, an ABP case demands sustained resources: the collection of samples over several months, iterative expert reviews, document exchanges, and strict procedural compliance. The administrative workload includes handling communications, extensions, supplementary analyses, and preparing the complete ABP documentation file for potential appeals.

Retroactive disqualifications require reordering rankings and results, reallocating prizes, updating databases, and notifying event organizers, federations, and affected athletes. All of this must comply with the harmonized standards of the World Anti-Doping Code and World Athletics anti-doping rules.

Costs and the role of the Court of Arbitration for Sport

Decisions involving international-level athletes can be appealed before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), either by the athlete, WADA, or the relevant national agency. The CAS operates under specific procedural rules, and in many international disciplinary matters, it has exclusive jurisdiction.

Although certain disciplinary appeals are exempt from arbitration fees, the payment of a CHF 1,000 registration fee is required to lodge an appeal, in addition to potential expenses for translation, legal assistance, or expert evidence. These factors add both financial and procedural complexity to the process for all parties involved.