Trends in athletics anti-doping – Summer 2025

The last 18 months have been a busy time for the anti-doping system in athletics. 117 different athletes are currently serving a ban for an anti-doping infraction that occurred in the year 2024.[1] The Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) has become an incredibly rare anti-doping institution in that it has received near-universal praise from across the sporting world – it is by no means perfect, nor is it catching everybody, but it really does seem to making headway towards a clean(er) sport.

This piece focuses on four anti-doping trends that athletics fans may observe over the coming year. It is by no means exhaustive, but intends to provide an overview of some of the main areas of concern and importance as the AIU and athletics world as a whole continues its pursuit of clean sport. The first two trends I have chosen relate to a rise in positive tests (the first due to contamination risks, the second due to the well-documented recent failures of the Spanish anti-doping system). The third trend discusses the re-allocation of Olympic medals that has made headlines in the decade following London 2012, an issue that may return to the news as we enter the final year of re-testing of Rio 2016 samples. Finally, I have chosen to focus on the recent resurgence of ‘nation-switching’, a phenomenon that has been associated with doping in various cases in recent years.

1. Rise in contamination cases

Contamination cases have been one of the most commonly discussed issue in global anti-doping in the last couple of years. The bans of high-profile athletes like Jannik Sinner[2] (clostebol), Iga Swiatek[3] (trimetazidine), Shelby Houlihan[4] (nandrolone) and CJ Ujah[5] (ostarine and S-23), all of whom have claimed innocence due to contamination to varying degrees of success, have shone a spotlight on contamination risk.

As the margins between victory and defeat seem to narrow year-by-year, athletes are increasingly looking for those 1% performance gains through supplements. The use of supplements does not have to be an anti-doping risk due to the development of the Informed Sport system. Any supplement with the Informed Sport certification has been batch-tested for banned substances, meaning that professional athletes can take these supplements without fearing an inadvertent positive test. Furthermore, athletes can use the Global Drugs Reference Online (DRO) system to check the ingredients of over-the-counter medications in many countries, limiting the risk of unintentional consumption of banned substances.

However, there are clear geographical nuances to this system. Global DRO operates in just seven countries (Canada, UK, USA, Switzerland, Japan, Australia, New Zealand), and their website refers to a further 25 countries/regions that offer a similar service.[6] The three countries with the most athletes currently on the AIU’s list of ineligible persons are Kenya, India and Russia, and none of those countries appear to have their own version of the DRO operating with local languages. Whilst many of the athletes in these countries may speak English, there is a clear gap in the availability of clear and reliable anti-doping information for those who do not speak English. By way of an example, a young Kenyan athlete may take an over the counter medication at home that contains no banned substances, but when racing in Europe the same medication may contain different ingredients, one of which could be on the prohibited substances list. Lacking a way of confirming the legality of the medicine in a language they are comfortable with, it is all too easy to see how an innocent decision can lead to devastating consequences.

Moreover, in terms of supplements, Informed Sport certifies products sold in 127 countries globally.[7] Whilst this is an impressively broad coverage for a company that only tests products in labs in the UK and USA, it still leaves countless areas where risk of supplement contamination remains high. At best, it means athletes in those areas are unable to take advantage of legal performance enhancers (such as caffeine, bicarbonate and beta alanine) for fear of contamination. At worst, athletes will use products that haven’t been batch-tested, and run the risk of a positive test for non-deliberate doping.

2. Rise in Spanish cases

Whilst the AIU have been praised as an excellent anti-doping institution, in recent years the Spanish Commission for the Fight Against Doping in Sports (CELAD) has been nothing short of a farce. As I have previously written about in length, concerns over CELAD’s work arose late in 2023 when an investigation by the Spanish Ministry for Culture revealed that CELAD has hidden the results of positive drug tests, provided backdated therapeutic use exemptions (TUEs) for Spanish athletes, and its drug testers have repeatedly acted against WADA protocol over the past decade.[8]

There are currently seven Spanish athletes banned by the AIU. This number sits precisely in the middle of four of their closest European neighbours and athletics competitors: Italy (18), France (9), Germany (3) and Great Britain (0).[9] However, rumours of the failures of CELAD makes Spain an obvious cause for concern in the athletics anti-doping world. The most famous of Spain’s currently banned athletes is Mo Katir, the two-time World Championship medallist whose rapid rise in 2021 raised eyebrows across the athletics world, before a rather less eyebrow-raising suspension in 2024 for whereabouts failures.

Whilst I’m generally not supportive of focusing heavily on any one country in athletics anti-doping – after all, this is an individual sport, and doping decisions often occur at the level of the athlete, coach and agent, not the national[10] – the sheer weight of evidence coming out of CELAD suggests that eyes should be turned towards Spain in the coming months. Reports of a backdated TUE for marathon national record holder Majida Maayouf after a positive test in November 2020 alongside claims that CELAD has consistently failed to prosecute athlete biological passport cases both point to a NADO that is in disarray[11]. If the AIU are able to step forward and steady the ship here, it seems inevitable that more positive tests (or possibly whereabouts failures with increased testing) will follow.

For the avoidance of doubt, this section does not intend to accuse any individual athlete (including Katir, who fell foul of whereabouts rules but never actually failed a test) of doping. Instead, it seeks to emphasise the damage that an incompetent NADO can do to faith in clean sport in a country.

3. Re-allocation of more medals with improved methods

Since 1968, 150 Olympic medals have been stripped from the competitor who originally won them as a result of doping. The first of these came as the Swedish Modern Pentathlon team lost their bronze medal due to Hans-Gunnar Liljenwall’s use of alcohol before the horseriding event, a prohibited substance at the time.

54 of the Olympic medals stripped for doping have come in athletics, the leading sport ahead of weightlifting (52) and wrestling (13).^[12] Whilst the London 2012 Olympics was at the time lauded as the ‘cleanest Olympics ever’,^[13] the decade following has unmasked it as perhaps one of the dirtiest – across all sports 46 medals won in London 2012 have been stripped, only surpassed by the 48 from Beijing 2008.

Under WADA rules, samples can be kept and re-tested for up to ten years after they are first collected. Therefore the International Testing Agency (ITA) released their report detailing the end of the London 2012 testing programme late in 2022. The final figures were shocking: from 2,727 re-analysed samples there were 73 anti-doping rule violations, with 46 medals reallocated.^[14]

The main reason so many positive tests were uncovered years after London 2012 was the development of the long-term metabolite test, an analytical method of detecting anabolic steroids that was not available in 2012.^[15] Based on the continued development of anti-doping science, it is likely that further methods will be introduced that will help to uncover doping cases from the Rio, Tokyo and Paris Games as time goes on. In December 2023 the ITA announced it had launched the sample re-analysis programme for Rio, leaving them 2.5 years for any further positive tests to be found. A lot depends on scientific development, but there is certainly a chance that London 2012’s new unwanted nickname of the ‘dirtiest Games in history’^[16] will not stick forever.

4. Nationality switches

It is not initially obvious why an athlete switching the nation that they represent would have any influence on their likelihood of doping. However, I would argue that the motivations for both doping and nation-switching often overlap. Athletes who switch nation often do so for two reasons: dissatisfaction with the progress of their career with the support of their current nation, and/or financial incentives offered by the nation switched to.

The move by Kenyan and Ethiopian distance-running athletes to Qatar and Bahrain has been a particularly prominent trend over the last 15 years. For example, Ruth Jebet, a steeplechaser born, raised and living in Kenya, represented Bahrain in the Rio 2016 Olympics and won the country’s first ever Olympic gold medal. She was believed to have earned the equivalent of US$500,000 from the Bahraini government after her victory, around 75 times the US$6,600 she could have expected to receive had she been representing Kenya.^[17]

Much more recently, there has been a burst of athletes in the last few weeks who have switched their allegiance to Turkey. Two Jamaican medallists from Paris (Roje Stona, discus gold and Rajindra Campbell, shot put bronze) have transferred in exchange for US$500,000 signing bonuses and monthly financial support, with two further athletes rumoured to have also applied for the switch. Furthermore, Nigerian sprinter Favour Ofili is also reportedly seeking a change of allegiance to Turkey, blaming the consistent incompetence of the Athletics Federation of Nigeria (which failed to ensure athletes were tested enough out of competition before the 2023 World Championships to be eligible to compete, alongside failing to enter Ofili for the 100m at the Paris Olympics despite her being qualified!)

A switch directly related to the issue of anti-doping is that of Delivine Meringor, who transferred from Kenya to Romania in 2021 alongside two of her Kenyan teammates (2024 European half marathon silver medallist Joan Chelimo and steeplechaser Stella Rutto). Meringor’s career highlights included a 4^th place finish beyond Chelimo at the Europeans in 2024, backed up by a 7^th place finish in the Paris Olympics marathon. However, such success in Romanian colours was short-lived, as Meringor was banned for athlete biological passport irregularities in June 2025, with her results since October 2022 nullified and the ban extending to October 2028.^[18]

From a legal perspective, country switching can be considered akin to jurisdiction switching. Beyond the financial benefits, there may be a growing risk that athletes could use such switches to move to countries with less stringent anti-doping compliance. Such risks emphasise that anti-doping law is not stable and uniform, but instead can be navigated in different ways providing a person possesses the necessary capital (in this sense, athletic ability) to be sought after by a nation known for ‘country switching’ such as Bahrain, Qatar or Turkey. Country switching allows athletes to subvert rules put in place to encourage compliance from countries with high doping risks: the AIU’s Rule 15 includes Kenya and Ethiopia in its highest risk category, but not Qatar or Turkey (although it does include Bahrain), showcasing the theoretical opportunities for athletes to, at least in the short term, escape more stringent observation.^[19]

However, on the flip side, nation-switching may actually lead to an increased risk of testing for some athletes. For example, when Delvine Meringor was competing for Kenya she had no meaningful success as a senior athlete, making her unlikely to come under the auspices of AIU or Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya (ADAK) testers. But as a Romanian, Meringor is arguably the most promising distance runner representing the country, making her a more likely testing target for both the AIU and Romanian National Anti-Doping Agency.

Nation-switching is therefore far from a slam-dunk example of an athlete who is doping and trying to avoid detection. Instead, it should perhaps best be seen as a warning flag. Athletes may wish to switch nations for a variety of legitimate reasons, but the closely aligned risk factors of doping and nation-switching should not be ignored entirely, nor should the positive tests of those who have switched in the past. For evidence linking nation-switching and doping, a long list is included in this excellent blog post by Jake Shelley.^[20] Although written 9 years ago, the factors discussed and lessons (not) learned by the athletics world are as applicable today as they were then.

Conclusion

In detailing the four trends above, I have attempted to provide an insight into some of the areas of anti-doping that I have become most acutely aware of in my interest in athletics as both a fan and anti-doping researcher over the last couple of years. Perhaps the issue of the four that concerns me the most is contamination. The grey areas of athletics have muddied the waters between being a ‘clean’ and ‘dirty’ athlete for years, but if cases like Jannik Sinner’s clostebol case begin to work their way into athletics, it will become even more difficult as a fan to establish the truth.

REFERENCES:

[1] https://www.athleticsintegrity.org/downloads/pdfs/disciplinary-process/en/Global-List-JUN_25.pdf

[2] https://www.wada-ama.org/en/news/wada-agrees-case-resolution-agreement-case-jannik-sinner

[3] https://www.itia.tennis/media/mohbxjhq/2024-11-27-itia-v-swiatek-itia-decision.pdf

[4] https://www.athleticsintegrity.org/downloads/pdfs/disciplinary-process/en/7977-Award-Reasoned-FINAL.pdf

[5] https://www.athleticsintegrity.org/downloads/pdfs/other/Press-Release-Ujah.pdf

[6] https://www.globaldro.com/home/other-countries

[7] https://sport.wetestyoutrust.com/about

[8] https://goldmedalsgreyareas.wordpress.com/2023/12/30/spanish-anti-doping-agency-controversy-positive-test-inaction-tue-misuse-and-a-nado-unfit-for-purpose/

[9] https://www.athleticsintegrity.org/downloads/pdfs/disciplinary-process/en/Global-List-JUN_25.pdf

[10] With the obvious exception of Russia’s state-sponsored doping scandal

[11] https://goldmedalsgreyareas.wordpress.com/2023/12/30/spanish-anti-doping-agency-controversy-positive-test-inaction-tue-misuse-and-a-nado-unfit-for-purpose/