Fri, November 03, 2023

World Athletics v Norah Jeruto


  • Sport: Athletics
  • Issue: Arbitration
  • Type: Anti-Doping
  • Tribunal: Charles Hollander KC, Pedro Fida, Hannu Kalkas
  • Decision date: 27 October 2023
  • Outcome: No ADRV

Decision Details

A decision in the case of World Athletics (WA) against Norah Jeruto has been issued by the Disciplinary Tribunal.

On 5 April 2023, the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) issued Ms Norah Jeruto, a long-distance runner from Kenya, with a Notice of Charge for committing an Anti-Doping Rule Violation (ADVR) for the Use of a Prohibited Substance and/or Prohibited Method pursuant to Rule 2.2 of the World Athletics Anti-Doping Rules (ADR). This Notice of Charge was in connection with abnormalities in the haematological module of her Athlete Biological Passport (ABP), in particular the matter concerned several abnormalities detected in blood samples collected from the Athlete between 21 June 2016 and 2 May 2022. 

The Disciplinary Tribunal, comprised of Mr Charles Hollander KC, Mr Pedro Fida and Ms Hannu Kalkas, was appointed to hear this matter. 

The Tribunal analysed the ADRV, and the explanation given by the Athlete, which convinced the Tribunal. The Athlete justified the first ABP abnormality by stating that she suffers from bleeding ulcers associated with H. pylori, the leading cause of peptic ulcer disease, which has hospitalised her on multiple occasions. Because of this, the Athlete was prescribed a Pylotrip kit and other medicines to try to cure and ease the pain. As to the second ABP abnormality, the Athlete went to the hospital for a runny nose, dry cough and pain in her chest and was told to take Rhinathiol/ Promethazine and due to getting blisters on her lips was given Zytee RB. 

The Tribunal concluded that, regarding the first ABP abnormality, the withdrawal of blood cannot in itself constitute an attempt to administer blood and that although it could be seen as a preparation of an ADRV, it could not constitute an Attempt as that would also require the intent, at least, of reinfusion. Therefore, the Tribunal refused both the Use and the Attempted Use charges by the AIU. In the matter of the second ABP abnormality, the Tribunal was persuaded that the sample results might have also been explained by a bout of Covid-19 and on balance they could not state that the AIU had proven its case to the Panel’s comfortable satisfaction. 

The Disciplinary Tribunal thereby determined that no ADRV had been established pursuant to Rule 2.2 of the World Athletics Anti-Doping Rules. Consequently, the charges were dismissed, no period of Ineligibility was imposed on the athlete, no results were disqualified, and the Provisional Suspension was lifted with immediate effect. 

Sport Resolutions is the independent secretariat to the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal.

A copy of the full decision can be accessed via the related links tab on the right-hand side.