“I fought the law and the law won.”
— Sonny Curtis
from the song “I Fought the Law” 1958.
Diana Chepkorir, a 29:56 10km runner from Kenya, fought hard against the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) in a rarely seen back-and-forth between a Kenyan athlete and the anti-doping organization.
The press release from the AIU contained several of her rebuttals. For example:
“I received your notices with utmost shock and disbelief and I wonder why it came almost the same time with my fallout with my management volaire that did not even mention of my anti doping violation in their communication In your notice latter you didn’t attach a certified copy of the lab report that should have been from the accredited laboratory and secondly the authensity of the report from the
expert which should have been also attached and be established if in deed the said panelists are nonpartisan.
Anything scientific is beyond all who are not expert on the said field and on the other hand, things happening in a human body can also be beyond scientific knowledge.
For fairness, transparency and accountability the burden of proof stand with the accuser who should prove their case beyond any reasonable doubt.
In this regard, I disapprove any involvement in any anti-doping violation with the regard with your letter of communication. TAKE NOTICE that I shall take this matter to the High Court of the Republic Kenya where this matter will be interrogated 360% and justice will be delivered.”
The rebuttal, along with several others, is fascinating considering that Kenyan athletes typically respond to provisional suspension notices from the AIU by ignoring them, taking what comes, or admitting guilt and receiving a shorter suspension.
The “29:56” athlete…
Chepkorir, at age 23, ran the 29:56 at the 2025 Facsa Castellón 10K. None of her other performances came close to that level.
Over 10 months, between May 18, 2024, and March 12, 2025, thirteen (13) valid blood samples were collected from the Athlete in the context of the World Athletics Athlete Biological Passport (“ABP”) program.
Like her 29:56 performance, she had red flags in her blood profile that, in a panel of experts, were found to indicate that she was likely doping.
On June 25, 2025, she continued to poke holes in the AIU’s assertions:
“I’m not knowledgeable at all to explain your demands about my samples to have been found with a variation because it involves a vigorous biological process that is beyond my thinking capacity and might also not have a factual and a straight explanation from the expert who are relying on OPINIONS which may also differ on the same findings.
Unless you want to capitalize on this “EXPERT OPINION” under wrong application of WADA RULE C.2.2.2.5.1 that makes me very vulnerable and strikes no fairness which is a breach of any international standard of proof to kill my athletics career.
For purposes of trust and accountability, you also owe me an explanation why my samples collection were wrongly placed to places I have never been that are about 5 of them.”
Opinion from the panel
In fairness, to a layman, opinion is not a final finding, but a position or a perspective. It would make sense that more athletes would argue against the opinion of a panel. What most people seek is a bona fide and factually accurate scientific outcome from a lab: Traces of a drug. Pleading ignorance puts her in the position of a bullied victim. Whoever her advisor is, they fought with everything they had. Typically, athletes will blame a physician for injecting them at a clinic or hospital or claim they had no idea.
“As you have decided to base your case on the “EXPERT OPINION” bearing location mismatches about 5 of them that eminented from two different links including a laboratory in Kenya which is not clear if it’s WADA accredited lab will definitely mean there’s no goodwill over this matter at all while the other report was from undisclosed entity that wasn’t certified and a collection of samples said to have been collected on 13th September 2024 that wasn’t recorded in my ADAMS accounts both documents attached therein as a proof for the irregularities.”
“Whereas you insist that the samples purported to have been collected on 13th September 2024 is visible to only you in my ADAMS portal and you don’t understand why I can’t see it and yet the system is under your control might be a strategy to confused me about the fact.
Secondly, if the crucial element of WHEREABOUTS that is a major component of exactly pinpointing location where samples were collected and yet in my case there’s an acute mismatches of places where the samples were said to have been collected 5 of them with wrongly captured location out of the 14 largely anomalies indicating Eldoret/ Iten and something called “VARIOUS” that is none applicable in whereabouts is quite unfortunate. Unless you are determined to base your case on irregularities that breached the public trust and undermines your credibility is yet to be tested.”
She responded with several more attempts to establish that the AIU had not done its due diligence, but it was finally decided that she failed in her burden to prove that she did not dope. She certainly was unable or did not bother to explain her blood value anomaly, implying ignorance in the scientific method to do so.
What’s more, it was fascinating that she attempted to leverage or imply bullying by the AIU by using words to establish that she was terrorized and stressed. It was a valiant effort, but it serves to establish that the AIU indeed is a legitimate and rigorous organization. Not that it was necessary, but she inadvertently gave the AIU credibility where conspiracy theorists claim targeting and bias.
