World Athletics v. Ethiopian National Anti-Doping Office (ETH-NADO), Diribe Welteji Kejelcha

At a glance

Parties

World Athletics v. Ethiopian National Anti-Doping Office (ETH-NADO) and Diribe Welteji Kejelcha

Case no.

CAS 2025/A/11755

Forum and rules

Court of Arbitration for Sport, appeals procedure under the Code of Sports-related Arbitration. Applicable rules: Ethiopian National Anti-Doping Office Rules 2021 (ADR), with Ethiopian law applying subsidiarily.

Panel

Marianne Saroli, Sole Arbitrator

Sector

Athletics (middle-distance); anti-doping

Outcome

Appeal partially upheld (26 February 2026). The acquittal was set aside, and the Athlete was found to have failed (not refused) to submit to sample collection. She received two years of ineligibility from 8 July 2025, not the four years World Athletics sought.

Amount

No monetary claims. Results from 25 February 2025 through the date of the Award are disqualified, with forfeiture of medals, points and prizes. The costs rulings (operative ¶¶ 6–7) are omitted from the published text.

The dispute

On 25 February 2025 three ETH-NADO sample collection personnel attempted an unannounced out-of-competition blood test at the home of Diribe Welteji Kejelcha, an Ethiopian Olympian in the international Registered Testing Pool. The visit fell outside her 60-minute ADAMS timeslot. After brief exchanges with her husband and then with her, they left without a sample and without completing any form on site. The ETH-NADO Hearing Panel acquitted her of an Article 2.3 ADR violation (evading, refusing or failing to submit to sample collection). It cited the lack of a clear refusal and departures from the International Standard for Testing and Investigations (ISTI). World Athletics, supported by ETH-NADO, appealed and sought a four-year ban. The Athlete argued that she was never validly notified, that she never refused and in fact asked the officers to come back, and that language barriers and procedural failures caused a misunderstanding. In the alternative, she argued that any failure was unintentional and merited two years, backdated.

Key holdings

1. The appeal is admissible. The unsigned 43-page document dated 12 August 2025, the hearing date, is not the official decision. The decision was issued on 27 August 2025 and notified to World Athletics on 30 August 2025. The appeal was filed within 21 days of receipt of the case file. ¶¶ 59–61
2. The Athlete was notified by duly authorised persons. Several ISTI departures occurred: an expired badge with only an official letter, no notification or refusal form signed on site, a report written afterwards, and a very brief interaction. None of them could reasonably have caused the violation under Article 3.2.3 ADR. Advising the Athlete of consequences is only a recommended practice ("should"), and an elite athlete is presumed to know the consequences. ¶¶ 105–119
3. A deliberate refusal is not established to the comfortable satisfaction standard. The Sole Arbitrator relied on confirmed language difficulties, the brief exchange in Oromiffa, the husband's interventions, and the Athlete's call to her manager about 20 minutes later asking whether the team could leave without a sample. She also gave caution to the closely similar accounts of the Athlete's family witnesses and did not believe the officers' claim that they feared for their safety. ¶¶ 124–131
4. A failure to submit is established. Once notified, the Athlete had to give immediate, unconditional agreement and ensure a sample was collected, pursuing any objection afterwards. Being "prepared" to give a sample is not enough. ¶¶ 132–138
5. There was no compelling justification, a defence that is construed restrictively and objectively. Testing outside the designated timeslot, the need for sleep or recovery, fatigue, the wish to ask questions and language barriers did not make it physically, hygienically or morally impossible to give a sample. ¶¶ 141–153
6. The Athlete proved on the balance of probabilities that the failure was not intentional, though it was negligent. The Sole Arbitrator relied mainly on the spontaneous call to her manager, her compliance on eight earlier out-of-window tests and the absence of any motive. The period of ineligibility is therefore two years under Article 10.3.1 ADR. ¶¶ 157–164
7. ETH-NADO's unexplained 66-day delay between receiving the Athlete's explanation (16 March 2025) and charging her (21 May 2025) was not "prompt" under ISRM Article 7.1. It was a substantial delay not attributable to her under Article 10.13.1 ADR. The ban is backdated 66 days from 12 September 2025 to start on 8 July 2025, with credit for seven days of provisional suspension. All results from 25 February 2025 through the date of the Award are disqualified. ¶¶ 170–187; operative ¶¶ 4–5

Procedural history

1. 25 February 2025ETH-NADO officers attend the Athlete's residence for an out-of-competition blood test and leave without a sample.
2. 10–16 March 2025ETH-NADO notifies an alleged Article 2.3 violation and imposes a provisional suspension. A panel lifts the suspension by majority on 16 March 2025.
3. 21 May 2025ETH-NADO formally charges the Athlete.
4. 12 August 2025Hearing before the ETH-NADO Hearing Panel, which announces that no violation is established.
5. 27 August 2025Written reasons of the Hearing Panel's decision, communicated to World Athletics on 30 August 2025.
6. 9 September 2025World Athletics files its Statement of Appeal with CAS, with a request for provisional measures.
7. 12 September 2025The President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division suspends the Athlete for the duration of the arbitration, ahead of the World Championships in Tokyo.
8. 31 October 2025CAS Court Office confirms Marianne Saroli as Sole Arbitrator.
9. 16 January 2026Hybrid hearing in Lausanne and by videoconference.
10. 26 February 2026Award: appeal partially upheld; two-year ineligibility for failing to submit to sample collection.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

• Marianne Saroli Sole arbitrator, Court of Arbitration for Sport — appointed by the parties jointly

For the claimant

Athletics Integrity Unit · Nicolas Zbinden · Louise Reilly · Robert Kerslake

For the respondent

ETH-NADO (in-house) · Paul Greene · Ryan Lipes · Yigermal Melkam

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• failure to submit to sample collection
• refusal to submit
• Article 2.3
• compelling justification
• out-of-competition testing
• ADAMS timeslot
• ISTI departures
• notification
• doping control officer evidence
• witness credibility
• language barrier
• intent
• Article 10.13.1 delay
• backdating ineligibility
• disqualification of results
• provisional measures
• athletics
• Athletics Integrity Unit

Summary generated with AI from the published documents — refer to the award for the authoritative text.