| 6 MARCH 2026, MONACO: A Disciplinary and Appeals Tribunal has imposed a two-year ban on World 100-metres gold medallist and two-time Olympic medallist, Fred Kerley, for Whereabouts Failures, ruling the American was “negligent and, to a certain extent, reckless” in not adhering to anti-doping regulations. The Tribunal ruled that the 30-year-old, provisionally suspended since 12 August last year, breached Anti-Doping Rule (ADR) 2.4 regarding “Whereabouts Failures by an Athlete in a Registered Testing Pool”, after recording three Whereabouts Failures in a 12-month period between 11 May and 6 December 2024. Having determined that Kerley committed a violation based on these three Whereabouts Failures, the Tribunal did not consider a fourth Whereabouts Failure that he was alleged to have committed on 7 December 2024. The period of ineligibility will run until 11 August 2027. Additionally, the athlete has been ordered to pay World Athletics £3 000 in legal fees and other expenses and his competitive results between 6 December 2024 and 12 August 2025 have been disqualified (including prize money, prizes and titles). Kerley won 100-metres gold at the Eugene World Championships in 2022 and twice captured the World sprint-relay gold – in Doha (2019) and in Budapest (2023) – while taking silver at the 2020 Olympic Games and bronze in 2024 in Paris. Given this level of experience and having been a member of the Testing Pool since 2017, the Tribunal said Kerley should have exercised more care. “Unfortunately, sophisticated doping substances may only be detectable within an athlete’s sample for a few days or even hours after administration. Anti-doping organisations need to be able to test athletes without notice on the day and hour of our choosing, otherwise anti-doping programmes will not work, and dopers will easily avoid detection. Whereabouts rules are therefore fundamental to the integrity of sport and must be respected,” said Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) Head, Brett Clothier. “The AIU will continue to strictly enforce Whereabouts requirements to protect the right of all athletes to clean competition.” Missed Tests/Filing Failures – on 11 May 2024, 13 June 2024 and 6 December 2024 – lay at the centre of the case. Kerley did not dispute the Whereabouts Failure of 13 June in Munich, Germany, but blamed technical issues with the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) Athlete Connect app for the 11 May Missed Test and the Doping Control Officer (DCO) for the Missed Tests on 6 and 7 December. A DCO arrived at Kerley’s Miami, Florida home on 11 May to conduct a test in the 60-minute period that Kerley had identified he would be available for testing on that date (between 6:16 and 7:16 am) and found him not there. The athlete updated his Whereabouts information during this 60-minute period to indicate that he was in Jamaica and not in Florida. Kerley subsequently argued that he had previously updated his Whereabouts, but the information had not been recorded due to technical issues with the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) Athlete Connect app. After reviewing evidence, the Tribunal said it did not consider Kerley’s explanation to be “plausible”, instead finding it “more likely that the athlete had failed to update his Whereabouts information for 11 May 2024 from the Miami Address to Jamaica and that he realised this when a DCO showed up at his house”. Regarding the 6 December Whereabouts Failure, Kerley again could not be found when the DCO arrived at an apartment in West Hollywood, California, during his specified 6:15 to 7:15 am time slot, with repeated knocks on the door and ringing of the doorbell going unanswered. However, Kerley subsequently claimed the DCO had not attempted to locate him for the entirety of the 60-minute window and had not done what was “reasonable in the circumstances” to collect a sample. In its ruling, the Tribunal found that “nothing in the DCO’s conduct fell short of what he was reasonably required to do in the circumstances”. The DCO arrived at the apartment building on time but the door was locked and there was no way to enter. The DCO eventually gained access to the building from maintenance staff and arrived at the door to the apartment at 6:45 am. The Tribunal found that “the DCO rang the doorbell and knocked on the door as he was reasonably expected to do” and that by making three phone calls towards the end of the hour he went “beyond what was reasonably required of him in attempting to locate the Athlete”. On the contrary, the Tribunal found that Kerley “did not comply with his Whereabouts duties” in that he did not provide specific information in his Whereabouts filings to allow the DCO to enter the building and it was fortunate that a maintenance worker allowed access. Further, it was found that Kerley should have placed himself in a position inside the apartment where he was able to hear the doorbell or knocking on the door and that he was “not just negligent but reckless” when he “consciously decided not to answer the three calls received during the 60-minute time slot (at 7:08 AM, 7:09 AM and at 7:12 AM)”. “The Tribunal accepts the AIU’s contention that No Advance Notice Out-of-Competition Testing is a fundamental aspect of the AIU’s anti-doping programme to combat the threat of doping to the integrity of Athletics. As argued, by the AIU, if those that are willing to cheat are able to put themselves beyond the reach of testing agencies for several days (or even hours) they will be able to dope with impunity,” stated the Tribunal. This decision may be appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). DECISION: FRED KERLEY |
