Skip to main content
International Arbitration Forum

World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya, Jackline Wambui

Case summary

At a glance

Parties
World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya (ADAK) and Jackline Wambui
Case no.
CAS 2024/A/10366
Forum and rules
Court of Arbitration for Sport, Appeals procedure; CAS Code of Sports-related Arbitration (2023 edition); 2016 ADAK Anti-Doping Rules
Tribunal
André Brantjes (Sole Arbitrator)
Sector
Athletics (middle/long-distance running); doping
Outcome
Appeal upheld (27 October 2025). The Appeal Panel decision of the Kenya Sports Disputes Tribunal was set aside and the athlete received a four-year period of ineligibility, with all results from 21 September 2021 to the date of the award disqualified.

The dispute

Jackline Wambui, a Kenyan middle/long-distance runner who is not an International-Level Athlete, tested positive in competition on 21 September 2021 for metabolites of nandrolone (19-nortestosterone), a non-specified anabolic steroid prohibited at all times. She said the substance came from medical treatment of a knee and ankle injury at the Oloolua Dispensary, where she had received a COX-B injection and Deca-durabolin, and that she had told the clinician she was an athlete. The Kenya Sports Disputes Tribunal found that she had established the origin of the substance and lack of intent, and imposed two years of ineligibility. Its Appeal Panel confirmed that decision on 25 January 2024. WADA appealed to CAS for a four-year ban, arguing that evidence from an Athletics Integrity Unit investigation showed she brought the Deca-durabolin herself and that she had at least indirect intent. ADAK supported the appeal. The athlete did not take part in the CAS proceedings.

Key holdings

  1. The athlete was duly summoned under Article R44.5 of the CAS Code. The Appeal Brief delivered by DHL came into her sphere of control, whoever signed for it. She was also notified at her ADAMS email address and at the email address she gave on the Doping Control Form. Notices sent only to an email address of unknown origin were not sufficient. ¶¶ 83–90
  2. The athlete waived analysis of her B sample. Under Article 2.1.2 of the ADAK ADR, the presence of nandrolone metabolites in her A sample is therefore sufficient proof of violations of Articles 2.1 and 2.2. ¶¶ 93–95
  3. The athlete bears the burden of proving that the violation was not intentional, so inconclusive evidence counts against her. The Sole Arbitrator accepted that she told the dispensary she was an athlete. He also accepted that she brought the Deca-durabolin herself, bought from a local chemist. There was no medical emergency, and even a basic check of the package or an internet search would have shown that the product contains nandrolone. ¶¶ 112–116
  4. Indirect intent (dolus eventualis) is the minimum threshold for intent. The athlete knew or ought to have known of a significant risk that the injection would result in a violation, and she manifestly disregarded that risk. She cannot hide behind a doctor's advice, and she failed to prove lack of intent. A four-year period of ineligibility therefore applies under Article 10.2.1. ¶¶ 101, 116–120
  5. Article 10.10 of the ADAK ADR in principle requires disqualification of results up to the start of any ineligibility period. This includes results obtained after the original ban expired on 20 December 2023 and before the increased ban. The athlete raised no fairness argument, and leaving such results intact would be unfair to her competitors. All results from 21 September 2021 to the date of the award are disqualified. ¶¶ 128–133
  6. The four-year ban starts on the date of the award. There is no earlier start for delay, because the delays were mainly caused by the athlete's non-participation. The provisional suspension and the period of ineligibility already served are credited. The period in which she was eligible from 20 December 2023 is not credited, so two years remain to be served. ¶¶ 135–137
  7. The operative paragraphs on costs (5 and 6) are redacted in the published award, so the costs ruling is not shown. Operative part, p. 28

Procedural history

  1. 21 September 2021In-competition urine sample collected from the athlete; the A sample later returned an adverse analytical finding for nandrolone metabolites.
  2. 30 November 2021ADAK issued the notice of an anti-doping rule violation. The athlete was provisionally suspended on 20 December 2021.
  3. 29 September 2022First instance decision of the Kenya Sports Disputes Tribunal imposed two years of ineligibility, crediting the provisional suspension.
  4. 25 January 2024Written decision of the Appeal Panel of the Kenya Sports Disputes Tribunal notified, confirming the first instance decision on the consolidated appeals of WADA and World Athletics.
  5. 22 February 2024WADA filed its Statement of Appeal with CAS.
  6. 17 June 2024The Deputy Division President consolidated this case with CAS 2024/A/10344 World Athletics v. Jackline Wambui & ADAK.
  7. 7 November 2024The CAS Court Office announced a Termination Order in CAS 2024/A/10344; only this case continued.
  8. 22 November 2024Sole Arbitrator André Brantjes appointed.
  9. 18 September 2025The Sole Arbitrator decided not to hold a hearing and invited submissions on costs and on disqualification of results after 20 December 2023.
  10. 27 October 2025Award: appeal upheld; four-year ineligibility and disqualification of results from 21 September 2021.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

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

Case ID
CAS 2024/A/10366
Country
Claimant
World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)
Respondent
Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya, Jackline Wambui
Documents

Procedure: Appeal
Sport: Athletics
Matter: Doping
Outcome: Upheld
Panel: André Brantjes
Source: Court of Arbitration for Sport case database.