Fri, February 06, 2026
World Athletics v Mr Benard Kibet Koech
A decision in the case of World Athletics (“WA”), against Mr Benard Kibet Koech (the “Athlete”) has been issued by the Disciplinary and Appeals Tribunal (“DAT”).
The decision concerns Mr Kibet Koech, a 26-year-old Kenyan long-distance runner and International-Level Athlete, who is subject to the World Athletics Anti-Doping Rules (“ADR”).
Between 15 February 2020 and 15 August 2024, the Athletics Integrity Unit (“AIU”) collected 27 Athlete Biological Passport (“ABP”) blood samples from the Athlete, of which 23 were considered valid and used in the evaluation of his haematological profile. On 7 January 2025, the ABP was reviewed under the International Standard for Results Management (“ISRM”) by an independent Expert Panel (Prof. Giuseppe d’Onofrio, Dr Laura Lewis and Dr Jakob Mørkeberg). The Expert Panel unanimously concluded that a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method had “highly likely been used” and that the abnormalities were unlikely to be explained by environmental factors or a medical condition. On 8 January 2025, the Nordic Athlete Passport Management Unit (“APMU”) declared the ABP an Atypical Passport Finding (“APF”).
On 10 June 2025, the AIU issued a Notice of Charge alleging an Anti-Doping Rule Violation (“ADRV”) under Rule 2.2 of the 2025 ADR (Use or Attempted Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method), based on abnormalities in the haematological module of the ABP. The Athlete denied the ADRV and requested that the matter be determined by a hearing before the DAT.
The Chairman of the DAT, Charles Hollander KC, appointed a Disciplinary Tribunal comprising Dr Tanja Haug as Chair, with Mr Paul-Filip Ciucur and Mr Parth Goswami appointed to sit alongside. The Disciplinary Tribunal held a hearing by video conference on 13 January 2026.
WA relied primarily on abnormalities in Samples 21–23, including elevated haemoglobin (“HGB”) values, elevated OFF-scores, and suppressed reticulocyte percentage (“RET%”). WA submitted that the sequence and magnitude of changes were consistent with blood manipulation, including the “wash-out”/OFF-phase following cessation of Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agents (“ESAs”), and were also compatible with a transfusion scenario. WA argued that negative urine tests did not exclude ESA Use due to detection limitations.
The Athlete denied any Use of ESAs or blood doping and contended that the abnormalities were caused by a combination of a COVID-19 illness beginning on 30 June 2024, a 30-day course of oral iron supplementation commencing on 10 May 2024, and altitude exposure and training in Kenya after returning from competition in Eugene, Oregon on 25 May 2024. He submitted that these factors, taken together, could affect erythropoiesis and account for elevated HGB, suppressed RET%, and increased OFF-scores.
The Disciplinary Tribunal accepted the Expert Panel’s interpretation that Samples 21–23 showed a clear abnormal sequence, including particularly significant outliers in Sample 22, and that the pattern was consistent with blood manipulation. The Disciplinary Tribunal rejected the Athlete’s COVID-19 explanation, finding insufficient contemporaneous objective medical evidence, including no testing, and limited corroboration despite the claimed severity of symptoms. The Disciplinary Tribunal also found that Sample 21 was collected before the alleged illness and therefore could not be attributed to COVID-19. It further concluded that neither altitude exposure nor oral iron supplementation could plausibly explain the abrupt abnormalities observed.
The Disciplinary Tribunal confirmed that WA bore the burden of proving the ADRV to its comfortable satisfaction under Rule 3.1 of the 2024 ADR, and observed that, under Rule 3.2 of the 2024 ADR, an ADRV may be established by any reliable means, including evidence from the ABP. It further confirmed that, in ABP cases, an athlete advancing alternative explanations assumes an evidential burden to substantiate both the factual basis and scientific plausibility of those explanations, and that speculative possibilities are insufficient.
The Disciplinary Tribunal was therefore comfortably satisfied that WA proved an ADRV under Rule 2.2 of the 2024 ADR and that the Athlete had failed to establish that his ADRV was not intentional. The Athlete was subsequently sanctioned with a four (4) year period of Ineligibility commencing on the date of the decision, with credit for the period of Provisional Suspension imposed from 10 June 2025. All competitive results obtained from 26 June 2024 to 10 June 2025 were Disqualified with all resulting Consequences pursuant to Rule 10.10 of the 2025 ADR. Each party was ordered to bear its own legal costs and expenses, and all other requests for relief were dismissed.
Sport Resolutions acted as the Independent Secretariat to the Disciplinary and Appeals Tribunal.
A copy of the full decision can be accessed via the related links tab on the right-hand side.
