Tue, March 10, 2026
World Athletics v Fredrick Kerley
A decision in the case of World Athletics (‘WA’) against Fredrick Kerley (the ‘Athlete’) has been issued by the World Athletics Disciplinary and Appeals Tribunal (‘DAT’).
Mr Kerley, an American athlete from Texas, specialising in track and field sprint events was charged with a violation of Rule 2.4 of the World Athletics Anti-Doping Rules (‘ADR’), based on three Whereabouts Failures, namely the alleged failure to be available for doping control on three occasions during a twelve-month period. The three missed tests allegedly happened on 11 May 2024, 13 June 2024, and 6 December 2024. The Athlete accepted the missed test on 13 June 2024 but contested the remaining two.
On 12 August 2025, the AIU issued Mr Kerley with a Notice of Charge. On 26 August 2025, the Athlete requested a hearing before the DAT.
The Panel, which comprised of Mr Dennis Koolaard (Chair), Ms Erika Riedl, and Mr David Sharpe KC, was appointed to determine this matter.
As to the Whereabouts Failure on 11 May 2024, the Athlete argued that he properly updated his Whereabouts on the application Athlete Connect but that such update was not recorded. He explained that the application sometimes faced technical problems which led to the update not registering, and that there was therefore no negligence on his part. As to the Whereabouts Failure on 6 December 2024, the Athlete argued that the Doping Control Officer (‘DCO’) did not do what was reasonable in the circumstances to collect the Sample from the Athlete. Mr Kerley stated that he was present at the address during the 60-minute window, awake and alert. He did not hear any knock on the door or ring on the doorbell from the DCO, and that there was therefore no negligence on the Athlete’s part.
Consequently, the Athlete invited the Panel to find that he had not committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation (‘ADRV’). Alternatively, if the Panel found that he had, the Athlete requested that any sanction imposed upon him should be to a maximum of one-year.
As to the Whereabouts Failure on 11 May 2024, the AIU argued that the Athlete’s case relying upon technical issues with the Athlete Connect application was unconvincing as the Athlete did not produce evidence in support of such assertion. The AIU further argued that the Athlete’s evidence as to the point at which he became aware that his alleged update had failed to register was contradicted by the documentary evidence. The Athlete alleged that he became aware of this on 13 May 2024 however, the AIU stated that the evidence showed that the Athlete accessed the application on 11 May 2024 where he updated his Whereabouts information from the original location to one abroad, during this 60-minte window. The AIU highlighted that the Athlete was therefore aware on 11 May 2024 that his Whereabouts information had not previously been updated.
As to the Whereabouts Failure on 6 December 2024, the AIU relied upon the DCO’s evidence. The AIU argued that the DCO did what was reasonable in the circumstances to locate the Athlete, in that: he was at the address provided on the Whereabouts information at the allocated time slot; he went to the apartment number provided and knocked on the door and rang the bell over ten time; those attempts being unsuccessful to locate the Athlete, he then called the Athlete by phone a few times but there was no response either.
The AIU therefore invited the DAT to reject the Athlete’s arguments, to determine that an ADRV had been established pursuant to Rule 2.4 World Athletics ADR, and to impose a period of Ineligibility of two (2) years.
The DAT rejected the Athlete’s assertion that he was not negligent on 11 May 2024 as first, there was no contemporaneous evidence of him reporting technical issues on the application to anyone. Second, the DAT stated that even if this argument was accepted, the Athlete did not double check whether the Whereabouts information was correctly updated for his trip abroad before travelling there. Third, the DAT found the AIU’s evidence more credible, namely that the Athlete was aware on 11 May 2024 that his Whereabouts information had not previously been updated as it was in fact updated during his designated 60-minute time slot on that day. The DAT thereby determined that an ADRV had been established pursuant to Rule 2.4 World Athletics ADR, and that the Athlete’s level of Fault in committing the ADRV was high.
The DAT rejected the Athlete’s assertion that he was not negligent on 6 December 2024. As two Whereabouts Failures had already been recorded, the Athlete should have been on high alert, knowing that a third Whereabouts Failure would result in an ADRV, and an increased level of caution was to be expected from him. The DAT accepted that the DCO did what was reasonable in the circumstances to locate the Athlete and was convinced that he must have placed himself in a position where he was not able to hear the doorbell or knock on the door. The DAT was further convinced that the Athlete deliberately refused to answer the telephone calls received from the DCO during the time slot. The DAT thereby determined that an ADRV had been established in regard to the Whereabouts Failure of 6 December 2024, and that the Athlete’s level of Fault in committing the ADRV was exceptionally high.
Therefore, the DAT directed that a period of Ineligibility of two (2) years be imposed. The period of Ineligibility commenced on the date of the DAT’s decision, 27 February 2026, but credit was given for the period Mr Kerley was provisionally suspended, therefore running from 12 August 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.
