Three-time World 1,500m champion Asbel Kiprop has been handed a four-year ban after testing positive for the banned substance EPO.
In a statement released by Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU), the body under IAAF whose mandate is to oversee sports integrity issues, Kiprop was found capable of using the banned substance in an out of competition test done in November 2017.
“Analysis of the sample collected from the athlete on 27 November 2017 demonstrated the presence of EPO. Analysis of the B sample confirmed the adverse analytical finding. EPO is a prohibited substance included in section 2 of the WADA 2017 Prohibited List, Peptide Hormones, Growth Factors, Related Substances and Mimetics,” part of the statement reads.
Kiprop had since maintained his innocence since he was provisionally suspended February last year.
Late last month, the athlete Kiprop and his lawyer Katwa Kigen had travelled to London for a final decision which was however delayed for yet another time after the decision had been pushed for three instances prior to then.
“None of the medications disclosed by the athlete on the DCF contains EPO and none of the could have caused the Adverse Analytical Finding. The presence of EPO in the sample therefore remains as valid evidence in support of the charge against the athlete for the presence and use of EPO,” continued the statement.
Consequently, Kiprop is banned for four years dated to February 3, 2018 whilst also losing all the honours he achieved since November 27,2017.
“The athletes results from the date of anti-doping violation November 27,2017 until the date of his provisional suspension February 3,2018 shall be disqualified with all consequences, including the forfeiture of any medals, titles, awards, points, prize and appearance money,” AIU added.
Lawyer Kigen however remains adamant that they will appeal the decision to ban Kiprop.
Speaking to Citizen Digital on Saturday, the advocate expressed dismay over the turn of events saying: “We were not allowed to do independent analysis hence there medical findings were uncontested!”
The AIU statement indicated that Mr. Kigen presented the panel with an ‘à la carte menu of reasons why the charges should be dismissed rather than a table d’hôte of one.’
“He did so with tenacity, ingenuity and charm,” the AIU statement reads.