Anti-doping Agency of Kenya (Adak) has appealed the ruling that was delivered in favor of Kumari Taki by the Sports Dispute Tribunal Court (SDT) citing that the court misadvised itself.
Through their Head of Legal Services Bildad Rogoncho, they have served the court with their appeal hearing and are waiting for the day to commence which he is confident that they will carry the day as their work is to present facts based on scientific findings presented to them by the assigned World Ant-doping Laboratories.
Speaking exclusively to Athletics News, in his office, Rogoncho said that, as an agency they have no business tampering with any individual samples.
“When an athlete sample is picked, he himself is the one that is allowed to seal and verify the sample and after that it is given a code name and taken the way it is to the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) accredited laboratories,” said Rongoncho.
“If you tamper with the bottle carrying the athletes samples, one it will break or even the accredited lab won’t accept it because they will face severe consequences from WADA, an example is South Africa, look what happened to them” he said.
Adak will be appealing the ruling basing their facts on the process of how the positive result of EPO was found in the body of Taki and not on the physical location where the sample was picked.
“Look here John, the Doping Control Form (DCF) tallied with the Administration and Management System (ADAMS) with the Physical form that Taki himself verified and signed. Adak did not err in its wholesome findings because the system cannot be manipulated,” Rongonch emphasized.
According to the scientific data Kumari Taki has been tested seventeen times with his first test done in July 2015, his second done on July 16, 2016 by Regional Anti-Doping Organizations (RADO), third done by China Anti-Doping Agency (CHINADA) and his fourth done on July 14, 2018 by Commonwealth Games Anti-doping Agency.
Taki was busted by Adak on July 22, 2022 when his samples from WADA- accredited Laboratory in Doha, Qatar Doping Control Laboratory analysed the A Sample in accordance with the procedures set out in WADA’s International Standard for Laboratories. Analysis of the A Sample returned an Adverse Analytical Finding (“AAF”) for presence of Prohibited Substance, a violation of Article 2.1 of the ADAK ADR S2. Peptide Hormones, Growth Factors, Related Substances and Mimetics/erythropoietin (EPO) a Non-Specified Substance and which attracts a period of ineligibility of four years.
Taki was consequently shown the door from the 2022 Commonwealth Games held in Birmingham after suspicion of doping malpractices, which was flagged down in its entirety by the Sports Dispute Tribunal.
Immediately after winning the doping case against Adak, the former world junior 1,500m champion has moved to court to sue Adak’s senior testing officer Mary Nyokabi Kairu and demanded her firing for damages, psychological torture and benefits he has missed during his time of being out of active running.
“I suffered a global embarrassment and shame as I’m a professional athlete competing at both local and international level since the year 2015. I have never failed to avail myself to the Anti-doping agency to be tested. I will not rest until the firing of the said DCO by Adak and reprimanded for the actions that has costed my life,” said Taki.
Adak’s head of legal services while responding to Taki’s demands said that he (Taki) cannot sue Kairu as an individual, she is protected by the law. According to Anti-doping act section 21/1 it states, “The staff of the Agency shall not be personally liable for any act which is done in good faith in the performance of any duty or in the exercise of any power under this Act.
The Court based their ruling on the respondent submission of the Article 3.2.3 of the World Anti-Doping Code which states,
Departures from any other International Standard or other anti-doping rule or policy set forth in the Code or in an Anti-Doping Organization’s rules shall not invalidate analytical results or other evidence of an anti-doping rule violation, and shall not constitute a defense to an anti-doping rule violation;22 provided, however, if the Athlete or other Person establishes that a departure from one of the specific International Standard provisions listed below could reasonably have caused an anti-doping rule violation based on an Adverse Analytical Finding or whereabouts failure, then the Anti-Doping Organization shall have the burden to establish that such departure did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding or whereabouts failure:
- a departure from the International Standard for Testing and Investigations related to Sample collection or Sample handling which could reasonably have caused an anti-doping rule violation based on an Adverse Analytical Finding, in which case the Anti-Doping Organization shall have the burden to establish that such departure did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding;
The court also took issue with Adak for failing to publish the correct location where the offending sample of June 22, 2022 was taken which it deemed as a clear departure from International Standards.
While making the ruling in favor of the respondent, the Court acted according to WADA Code Article 10.4 Elimination of the Period of Ineligibility where there is No Fault or Negligence is applicable in this matter: ‘If an Athlete or other Person establishes in an individual case that he or she bears No Fault or Negligence, then the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility shall be eliminated.
Let’s meet with him in court soon and present our case based on facts on the Doping Control Process which humanly as the set system cannot be tampered until they have reached the accredited labs, “ We only know you by the assigned code and not your name, Rongocho concluded.
The mention of the case will happen today September 7, 2023.