World Athletics v Wilfried Happio

Decision Summary

• Sport: Athletics
• Issue: Arbitration
• Type: Anti-Doping
• Tribunal: Benoit Girardin, Erika Riedl, Julien Berenger
• Decision date: 12 June 2025
• Outcome: 18 months Ineligibility

A decision in the case of World Athletics (‘WA’) against Wilfried Happio (the ‘Athlete’) has been issued by the World Athletics Disciplinary and Appeals Tribunal (‘DAT’). Following the Athlete’s request, an operative award was issued on 17 April 2025, and the full decision followed on 12 June 2025.

Mr Happio, a French athlete, specialising in the 400 meters hurdles, was accused of violating Rule 2.4 of the WA Anti-Doping Rules (‘ADR’), namely missing three doping tests (thereby committing three whereabouts failures) during a period of twelve (12) months. The three (3) missed tests allegedly happened on 10 May 2024, 29 May 2024, and 17 October 2024. The Athlete accepted the first missed test but contested the remaining two (2). The AIU argued that in the first two (2) whereabouts failures, the Athlete provided incorrect information relating to his whereabouts in that he was not present where he had said he would be and missed the Out-of-Competition tests. In the third whereabouts failure, the Athlete was allegedly at home but failed to present himself to the Doping Control Officer (‘DCO’) and missed his doping control test.

On 22 October 2024, the AIU issued Mr Happio with a Notice of Allegation of Anti-Doping Rule Violations (ADRVs). Following receipt of the Athlete’s explanation, the AIU confirmed the third whereabouts failure and on 30 January 2025, the Athlete was Provisionally Suspended.

On 6 February 2025, the Athlete denied having committed a third whereabouts failure and requested the lifting of the Provisional Suspension. On 21 February 2025, the AIU issued Mr Happio with a Notice of Charge. On 6 March 2025, the Athlete requested an expedited hearing before the DAT.

The Panel, which comprised Mr Benoit Girardin (Chair), Mr Julien Berenger, and Ms Erika Riedl, was appointed to determine this matter.

The Athlete denied the ADRV, arguing that, in relation to the second missed test, he was only made aware of the change to his flight the day before the test was meant to take place. He tried to amend his time slot on ADAMS, the online platform, but was not able to do so due to a technical error. He argued that he bore No Fault or Negligence, as the filing failure could not be attributed to him.

Regarding the third missed test, the Athlete argued that he was at home, as recorded on ADAMS, during his time slot. He was asleep but had his mobile phone next to him and assumed he would receive a call from the DCO when the DCO arrived at the property. The Athlete argued that this had been the process that had been followed when he had previously taken part in doping control tests. The Athlete conceded it was possible he did not hear the doorbell, as there had been a couple of occasions some time before, where the doorbell did not seem to function properly. He explained that the doorbell is not by the main entrance door but by the entrance gate of the property. The Athlete further conceded that due to his personal circumstances and busy schedule, he had found it difficult to stay on top of his obligations regarding his whereabouts. In any event, the Athlete argued that the DCO did not take all reasonable steps to contact him.

The Athlete’s wife also provided evidence at the hearing. She stated that she was at home with the Athlete at the time of the third missed test and confirmed that he was asleep. She was awake to feed their baby and did not hear the doorbell. She confirmed that the sound of the doorbell is loud enough to be heard from inside the home and that their dog would have barked had the doorbell rang. She further explained that the gate is always open.

She also conceded to having been aware of the recent issues with the doorbell and testified that these issues had been occurring during the months preceding the third missed test. She further attested that, following receipt of the Notification of a Potential ADRV, she and the Athlete instructed a bailiff to come to the property to inspect the doorbell. The bailiff confirmed that the doorbell could be heard from the street. The Athlete’s wife further explained that they subsequently ordered and installed a new doorbell following the date of the third missed test but that they had been intending to replace the doorbell before then.

The AIU stated that, under the ADR, the Athlete’s Negligence is presumed and that he had failed to revert this presumption, as his explanation lacked credibility.

Indeed, the AIU alleged that the Athlete’s version of the story lacked consistency. For instance, the AIU argued that the Athlete’s information relating to his whereabouts the night before the second missed test was erroneous. In any event, the AIU argued that the Athlete had sufficient time, after he had changed his flight, to amend the information he provided on ADAMS and was required, under the ADR, to update his whereabouts information “as soon as possible”.

Regarding the third missed test, the DCO testified at the hearing that he has conducted many doping control tests during his career. He confirmed that the shutters were closed and the house, where the Athlete claimed to be, was dark. He explained that he rang the doorbell every five (5) minutes during the one-hour timeslot and that he could see a red light come up whenever he rang the doorbell, so there was no reason for him to think that the doorbell was not working. He confirmed that no one answered the door and that it is not common practice for him to open a gate or a door and walk into a property uninvited, or to call the Athlete on the phone, when he was not specifically instructed to do so.

The AIU argued that the DCO took all reasonable measures to try and locate the Athlete and that the potential dysfunction of the doorbell was not the responsibility of the DCO to ascertain or resolve. The AIU further argued that there is no obligation on DCOs to call athletes and alert them of their presence for a doping control test. This is simply a discretionary power. The AIU further highlighted that the issue with the doorbell served to aggravate the suggestion that the Athlete failed to respect his whereabouts obligations, independently of the ADRV.

The DAT confirmed the first charge as it was not contested by the Athlete. The DAT rejected the Athlete’s assertion that the online platform was not functioning properly as there was no proof of such. The DAT was therefore convinced that the Athlete had been negligent, in failing to amend his whereabouts information as soon as possible. The DAT found that as an Olympian, the Athlete has a responsibility to provide his whereabouts information and, that any failure to comply with these obligations, will have consequences. Regarding the third missed test, the DAT rejected the Athlete’s assertion that he took all reasonable steps to be available for the doping control test. The DAT was convinced that the Athlete was at his home at the time of the missed test, but found his nonchalance and negligence were the reasons for the third missed test. The Athlete should have been on high alert, especially after having been notified of the two (2) previous missed tests.

The DAT thereby determined that an ADRV had been proven, pursuant to Rule 2.4 ADR. As to the Athlete’s level of Fault in committing the ADRVs, the DAT was convinced that the Athlete’s Fault fell within the middle of the range of previous whereabouts cases. Therefore, a Period of Ineligibility of eighteen (18) months was imposed. The period of Ineligibility commenced on the date of the DAT’s decision (operative award), 17 April 2025, but credit was given for the period Mr Happio was provisionally suspended, therefore running from 30 January 2025.

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

• World Athletics v Wilfried HappioDecision

Share this page