decisions

World Athletics v Sheila Chelangat

  • Sport: Athletics
  • Issue: Arbitration
  • Type: Anti-Doping
  • Tribunal: Mr Raj Parker (Sole Arbitrator)
  • Decision date: 28 November 2025
  • Outcome: 6-year Ineligibility

A decision in the case of World Athletics (WA) against Sheila Chelangat (the Athlete) has been issued by the WA Disciplinary and Appeals Tribunal (DAT).

On 20 May 2025, Ms Chelangat, a 27-year-old long-distance runner from Kenya, was notified of two Adverse Analytical Findings (AAFs). A urine Sample was collected from the Athlete during her participation at the Copenhagen Half Marathon, on 15 September 2024 and a blood Sample was collected Out-of-Competition, ahead of the Athlete’s participation at the Nagoya Women’s Marathon, on 7 March 2025. At the same time as being informed of the two AAFs, she was also informed that she was Provisionally Suspended with immediate effect.

The AAFs detected erythropoietin (EPO) in the Athlete’s system. EPO is a Prohibited Substance according to the World Anti-Doping Agency’s (WADA) 2024 and 2025 Prohibited Lists, under the category S2 Peptide Hormones, Growth Factors, Related Substances, and Mimetics. It is a Non-Specified Substance, prohibited at all times.

Ms Chelangat responded to the notification of the two AAFs, issued by the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU), denying that she had committed any Anti-Doping Rule Violations (ADRVs) and claimed that there had been irregularities and anomalies in the process of collecting and transporting her Samples to the relevant WADA-accredited laboratories. On 5 June 2025, having withdrawn from an interview with the AIU, Ms Chelangat wrote to them to enquire about entering into a case resolution agreement, pursuant to Rule 10.8.2 of the WA Anti-Doping Rules (ADR), stating that she was willing to accept the Consequences imposed by the AIU and WADA. On 11 June 2025, the AIU relayed the decision from WADA that a case resolution agreement would not be possible.

Having failed to either provide a written explanation for the AAFs or formally admit to the ADRVs and accept the Consequences as outlined in the ADR, the AIU issued Ms Chelangat with a Notice of Charge, dated 30 June 2025, stating that she was being charged with ADRVs for the Presence and/or Use of EPO.

The Athlete subsequently requested that her case be referred to the DAT for determination.

The Disciplinary Panel, comprised of Mr Raj Parker, sitting as Sole Arbitrator, was appointed to hear this matter.

Extensive communication was passed between Ms Chelangat and the Secretariat in relation to a variety of concerns and allegations raised by the Athlete. Ms Chelangat was particularly concerned with the Sole Arbitrator’s qualifications and experience to hear and determine this matter.

On 18 September 2025, Ms Chelangat confirmed that she was challenging the appointment and suitability of the Sole Arbitrator. This issue was referred to the Chair of the DAT, Mr Charles Hollander KC, in accordance with Rule 8.7.4 ADR.

On 1 October 2025, the Athlete’s challenge to the appointment of the Sole Arbitrator was dismissed.

Ms Chelangat did not engage further in these proceedings. As such, she provided no explanation as to her conduct or the particular circumstances that resulted in the AAFs and did not seek a reduction in the period of Ineligibility set by the ADR. She further failed to demonstrate that the ADRVs were not intentional.

The AIU submitted that the period of Ineligibility imposed on the Athlete should be increased in view of the Aggravating Circumstances, as allowed for under Rule 10.4 ADR, which were evidenced and uncontested in this case.

Having considered the evidence before him, in particular the timing of the two AAFs (registered five (5) months apart for a substance known to have a short window of detection), the characteristics of EPO (being highly regulated worldwide, injected, and difficult to detect), the connection between the AAFs and the Athlete’s participation in sanctioned Events, the Sole Arbitrator found that the maximum increase, two (2) years, to the period of Ineligibility imposed under the ADR was justified.

The Disciplinary and Appeals Tribunal thereby determined that ADRVs have been established pursuant to Rule 2.1 and Rule 2.2 of the ADR and a period of Ineligibility of six (6) years is imposed on Ms Chelangat. The period of Ineligibility commenced on the date of the decision, 28 November 2025, but credit was given for the period Ms Chelangat was provisionally suspended, therefore running from 20 May 2025. Further, Ms Chelangat’s results (and all resulting Consequences, including forfeiture of any medals, titles, awards, points, and prize and appearance money) obtained at the Copenhagen Half Marathon and until the start of the Provisional Suspension imposed, are disqualified in accordance with Rules 9, 10.1, and 10.10 of the ADR.

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

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

Related Documents

Need help or assistance?

Should you require Sport Resolutions to conduct and manage an investigation, review or inquiry, or have any other enquiries, please get in touch.

Contact us