World Athletics v Tsehay Gemechu

Decision Details

A decision in the case of World Athletics (WA) against Tsehay Gemechu has been issued by the Disciplinary Tribunal.

On 30 November 2023, the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) issued Ms Gemechu, a 25-year-old long-distance runner from Ethiopia, with a Notice of Charge for an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) under the 2023 Anti-Doping Rules (2023 ADR) in connection with abnormalities found in the haematological module of her Athlete Biological Passport (ABP). In particular, the matter concerned multiple abnormalities detected in blood Samples collected from Ms Gemechu between 24 October 2018 and 20 May 2023 that suggested blood manipulation. Three independent experts reviewed Ms Gemechu’s ABP and concluded that three Samples - Sample 11 (collected on 22 March 2020), Sample 34 (collected on 19 April 2022), and Sample 35 (collected on 7 May 2022) - indicated the Use of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method, which violated Rule 2.2 of the applicable Anti-Doping Rules.

The ABP programme was developed and refined by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and was formally introduced by WA in 2009. The purpose of the programme is to provide a further means of detecting doping beyond that which might be established by testing In or Out-of-Competition. It is an electronic record that monitors selected variables (i.e. biomarkers) from an athlete over a period of time and indirectly reveals the effect of doping.

The Disciplinary Panel, comprised of William Norris KC (Chair), Dr Tanja Haug, and Dr Tom Murray, was appointed to hear this matter. 

Ms Gemechu denied the Charge and provided multiple explanations for the abnormalities in her ABP, which included (1) irregular and inconsistent training loads; (2) change in altitude; (3) infection and subsequent use of an antibiotic; (4) chronic Hepatitis B condition and (5) a temporary medical condition.

Ms Gemechu further argued that there were deficiencies in the doping scenario, noting that the proposed timeline did not align with her competition schedule, making it unlikely that blood doping would have provided any advantage at the times the allegedly suspicious Samples were collected. She further questioned the invalidation of 19 Samples from her ABP and raised concerns regarding the quality control measures at the WADA-accredited Laboratory in Nairobi, Kenya, from which 15 of the 19 invalidated Samples originated. Additionally, Ms Gemechu expressed doubts about whether appropriate protocols were followed in the Results Management process.

Ms Gemechu’s ABP was referred by World Athletics to three independent experts who formed the Expert Panel. The Expert Panel submitted three Joint Expert Opinions, concluding that in their view none of the arguments provided by Ms Gemechu offered any credible alternative explanation for the abnormalities observed in the profile and that it was highly likely that a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method had been Used.

During the hearing, an expert witness conference took place between the Expert Panel and Ms Gemechu’s expert witness, which allowed for a thorough examination of each argument raised in Ms Gemechu’s defence. 

The Expert Panel highlighted that Sample 11 showed a high haemoglobin level outside Ms Gemechu’s typical range. The combination of elevated haemoglobin and low reticulocyte levels was thus indicative of a doping scenario. This interpretation was further supported by Samples 34 and 35, which again showed a marked drop in reticulocyte levels.

Ms Gemechu’s expert witness asserted that the irregularities in Sample 11 could be attributed to Ms Gemechu’s inactivity due to a knee injury. The Expert Panel, however, rejected this explanation, noting that Samples 10 and 12 – taken during the same period of inactivity – did not show the same abnormalities in high haemoglobin and low reticulocyte levels as Sample 11. This view from the Expert Panel was favoured by the Disciplinary Panel. 

It was further suggested in Ms Gemechu’s defence that the decrease in reticulocytes in Samples 34 and 35 was due to her recent return to sea level from altitude. However, the Disciplinary Panel found the Expert Panel’s analysis compelling, as it cited established and reputable studies that refuted Ms Gemechu’s timeline and concluded that it was highly unlikely that reticulocyte levels would show such a pronounced effect 53 hours after returning to sea level from altitude.

Further, the Disciplinary Panel did not accept Ms Gemechu’s argument that there was no obvious benefit to her doping in March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, reasoning that it may not have been clear at the beginning of the year how significantly competitions would be disrupted.

The Expert Panel also ruled out temporary medical conditions as explanations, noting a lack of a physiological basis or supporting research for the reticulocyte results. The Disciplinary Panel also found no support for the contention that Ms Gemechu’s chronic Hepatitis B infection could be a material factor. 

The Disciplinary Panel further reviewed the manner in which Ms Gemechu’s ABP Samples had been collected and handled, and ultimately dismissed her argument that the removal of 19 Samples was unusual. In fact, the Expert Panel attested that this removal reflected the rigor of the process. Ms Gemechu was unable to provide any material evidence to demonstrate a deviation in either the Results Management process or the applicable International Standard for Results Management.

The procedural aspects of this case were governed by the 2023 ADR, while the substantive matters were governed by the 2019 ADR (Sample 11) and the 2021 ADR (Samples 34 and 35). Consequently, the Disciplinary Panel determined that an ADRV had been established under Rule 2.2 of both the 2019 and 2021 ADR.

Accordingly, under the 2023 ADR, the Disciplinary Panel imposed a four-year (4) period of Ineligibility on Ms Gemechu, commencing on 21 October 2024, based on its conclusion that the Disciplinary Panel was comfortably satisfied that the ADRV was intentional. Credit was applied for the period of Ms Gemechu’s Provisional Suspension, making the period of Ineligibility effective from 30 November 2023. Additionally, all results obtained by Ms Gemechu from 22 March 2020 onwards are Disqualified. This decision is subject to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

Sport Resolutions is the independent secretariat to the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal.

A copy of the full decision can be accessed via the related links tab on the right-hand side.