New doping warnings: Kibiwott Kandie's case opens a broader debate on sample control
Former half marathon world record holder Kibiwott Kandie is once again at the center of an anti-doping procedure after the Athletics Integrity Unit, known as the AIU, stated in its records that the Kenyan long-distance runner has been charged with evading, refusing or failing to provide a sample and with tampering or attempted tampering with doping control. According to the publicly available AIU list of provisional suspensions, the case has been ongoing since March 1, 2025, and the status of the procedure is marked as a notice of charge issued. This is a procedure that does not yet mean a final ruling on the athlete's responsibility, but it shows that the case has entered the formal stage of the anti-doping process.
Kandie is known to the wider sporting public for his result of 57:32, with which he set the then world record in the half marathon in Valencia in 2020. That result has since lost the status of the current record, but it remains one of the most recognizable moments in modern road running. The case has therefore resonated especially strongly because it does not concern an anonymous competitor, but an athlete who, for a period, was the benchmark for the fastest half marathon running in the world. In doping cases of this kind, attention does not remain only on the possible use of prohibited substances, but also on compliance with the rules that make it possible for controls to be carried out at all.
According to World Athletics rules, evading or refusing to provide a sample is considered a separate anti-doping rule violation. Tampering with doping control is also a particularly serious category because it concerns attempts to obstruct the procedure, conceal facts, provide false information or other actions that undermine the credibility of the control. In its description of provisional suspension, the AIU emphasizes that such a measure is not a final decision on guilt, but a temporary protective measure while the procedure is ongoing. This distinction is precisely what is important for public reporting: the athlete has been formally charged and suspended, but the final decision on a sanction is made only after the procedure has been completed.
Why tampering with control is one of the most sensitive issues
The anti-doping system rests on the possibility of testing athletes during in-competition and out-of-competition periods, often without prior notice. If the credibility of sample collection is undermined, the entire system loses evidentiary strength. That is why the rules of the World Anti-Doping Code, as well as the rules of individual sports federations, give special attention to cases of avoiding testing, athlete unavailability and tampering with samples or the procedure. In practice, this can include very different circumstances, from missed testing to active concealment of traces or attempts to influence officials.
In athletics, this framework is especially developed because of the large number of international competitions, frequent changes of location and the importance of out-of-competition testing. The AIU states that its jurisdiction is focused on international athletes, people from their professional entourage, World Athletics officials and cases connected with the integrity of the sport. According to data published by the AIU for 2024, 13,428 samples were collected in 101 countries, from 3,747 athletes of 139 nationalities. Such figures show the scale of the system, but also the reason why procedures connected with evading control are treated almost as seriously as positive findings.
Kandie's case fits into the broader picture of increased oversight in athletics, especially in endurance disciplines. The public list of the latest AIU sanctions in May 2026 includes several cases involving the presence or use of prohibited substances, the athlete biological passport and failures connected with whereabouts information. Among them are cases of athletes from Kenya, Ethiopia, Canada and other countries, which shows that anti-doping oversight is not tied only to one country or one discipline. Still, cases involving well-known long-distance runners are particularly sensitive because results in the marathon and half marathon are often interpreted as indicators of endurance, long-term work and the limits of human performance.
Tennis under scrutiny again because of clostebol
In the same week in which Kandie's case gained new public visibility, the International Tennis Integrity Agency, ITIA, announced that Latvian tennis player Karlis Ozolins and American tennis player Daniil Kakhniuk had been provisionally suspended after positive findings for clostebol. According to the ITIA announcement of May 12, 2026, both provided samples during an ITF World Tennis Tour tournament in San Jose, Costa Rica, on February 17, 2026, and metabolites of that prohibited substance were found in the samples. The provisional suspensions have been in force since April 14, 2026, and the ITIA states that the players have the right to appeal.
Clostebol is an anabolic agent that is included on WADA's Prohibited List. In tennis, its presence in the last few years has attracted considerable attention because some cases have centered on questions of contamination, medical preparations and the responsibility of athletes for substances that enter the body. In its rules, the ITIA emphasizes that tennis players are tested according to WADA's list and that athletes and their teams are obliged to understand which substances are prohibited. That responsibility also includes dietary supplements, medicines, ointments, creams and other products that may contain prohibited ingredients.
According to the ITIA announcement, Ozolins and Kakhniuk had not exercised the right to appeal the provisional suspensions at the time of publication. While suspended, they may not compete, train as official coaches or attend events organized or sanctioned by the ITF, WTA, ATP, Grand Slam tournaments or national associations. That ban shows the breadth of the consequences even before a final decision in the procedure. Provisional suspension in cases involving certain substances is not only an administrative measure, but directly affects the ability to earn income, ranking, access to tournaments and the everyday professional work of athletes.
Tennis is additionally sensitive because it is a sport with a long season, frequent travel and major differences between top players and competitors at lower levels. Players outside the very top often do not have the same medical, legal and logistical support as the biggest stars, but the rules of responsibility apply equally. The ITIA therefore regularly reminds in its announcements of the availability of legal assistance, independent psychological support and financial assistance for investigating the source of positive findings. This does not change the seriousness of the findings, but it shows that the procedure is not reduced only to imposing a penalty, but also to determining the circumstances in which the finding occurred.
Combat sports and the broader problem of trust
Doping topics are not limited to athletics and tennis. In combat sports, several cases have also been recorded in recent months involving prohibited substances, missed tests and questions of athlete responsibility. Combat Sports Anti-Doping, the body that manages the UFC's anti-doping program, states in its records that Iasmin Lucindo Bezerra accepted a nine-month sanction in January 2026 after a positive finding for mesterolone, with the investigation indicating possible contamination of supplements from a compounding pharmacy. In the same month, Mohammed Usman accepted a thirty-month sanction after a positive finding for testosterone, with an admission of the use of testosterone and the peptide BPC-157 before the UFC Rio event.
CSAD had earlier also announced several other cases in which trimetazidine, meldonium, furosemide, drostanolone, tamoxifen, anastrozole and other substances appeared. Some cases involved positive findings, some missed tests, and some undeclared use before the athlete entered the UFC's registered testing program. Such cases are particularly important in combat sports because the issue of doping does not concern only the fairness of competition, but also the safety of opponents. In sports in which the goal is to physically overcome the opponent, the use of substances that can increase strength, endurance or recovery has additional ethical and health weight.
The case of former UFC champion Conor McGregor, who according to a UFC announcement from October 2025 accepted an eighteen-month sanction for three missed tests within a 12-month period, showed that even the absence of a positive finding can lead to serious consequences. According to that announcement, it was a violation of the rules on the athlete's availability for testing, not a finding of a prohibited substance. This example further emphasizes that the modern anti-doping system does not punish only proven use of prohibited substances, but also actions that prevent or make it more difficult to carry out control.
The rugby case shows how far attempts to bypass the system can go
A particularly dramatic example of tampering with an anti-doping procedure came from rugby. World Rugby announced that six Georgian national team players and one member of the professional staff had been sanctioned after an investigation into an organized scheme connected with recreational drugs and sample substitution. According to World Rugby's statement, this was a practice prohibited by WADA's code and the rules of that organization. The case was publicly described as one of the most extensive anti-doping investigations in the history of rugby.
The harshest punishment was given to former Georgian captain Merab Sharikadze, who received an eleven-year suspension. According to reports based on World Rugby's announcement, the investigation established that there had been urine sample substitutions and advance warnings about testing. The Guardian reported that no firm evidence was found of an attempt to conceal the use of performance-enhancing substances, but that the sample substitutions were connected with concealing substances such as cannabis and tramadol. Still, for anti-doping rules, the key issue is the tampering with the procedure itself, not only the type of substance being concealed.
That case additionally illustrates how dependent the anti-doping system is on the integrity of everyone involved: athletes, doctors, federation structures, laboratories and officials. If someone within the system warns athletes in advance about testing or helps with sample substitution, then this is not only an individual violation, but an attack on the entire oversight structure. In its statement, World Rugby highlighted the importance of a science-led anti-doping program, biological profiling, testing and long-term sample storage. This is a message that goes beyond rugby and applies to all sports in which results are based on trust in the regularity of competition.
WADA's 2026 list entered into force on January 1
The World Anti-Doping Agency, WADA, published the Prohibited List of substances and methods for 2026, which was approved by its Executive Committee on September 11, 2025, and entered into force on January 1, 2026. That list is the foundation for anti-doping programs in athletics, tennis, rugby, combat sports and other disciplines that apply the WADA Code or rely directly on it. The list is updated every year, and athletes and members of their teams must monitor changes because the status of individual substances, methods and therapeutic exemptions can change.
It is important to distinguish several types of doping cases. A positive finding for a prohibited substance is one form of violation, but it is not the only one. Use of a prohibited method, possession of certain substances, evading testing, failures regarding whereabouts obligations, tampering with the procedure and participation of people from the professional team can also lead to sanctions. Precisely for that reason, recent cases from athletics, tennis, combat sports and rugby do not speak only about one substance or one athlete, but about different weak points of the system: athlete availability, control of medicines and supplements, sample integrity and the responsibility of the people around competitors.
For the public, it is important that anti-doping procedures are not oversimplified. A positive finding does not always mean the same level of fault, just as the absence of a positive finding does not exclude a violation if the athlete avoided testing or tried to tamper with the procedure. That is why official announcements often distinguish between provisional suspension, notice of charge, admission of responsibility, a decision by an independent body and final sanction. In the case of Kibiwott Kandie, what is currently crucial is that, according to AIU records, he has been formally charged and provisionally suspended, while the final outcome will depend on the completion of the procedure.
What these cases mean for athletes and federations
A series of current cases shows that anti-doping oversight is increasingly moving beyond the traditional question of whether a prohibited substance was found in a sample. Sports organizations increasingly emphasize the obligation of proper availability for testing, full reporting of medicines and supplements, cooperation with officials and preservation of sample credibility. For athletes, this means that responsibility does not end with the claim that they did not intentionally take a prohibited substance. It is necessary to be able to explain what was taken, where it was bought, who recommended the product, whether the ingredient list was checked and whether doctors or coaches were familiar with anti-doping rules.
For federations and competition organizers, the message is equally clear. Athlete education, transparent procedures, the independence of testing and cooperation with WADA and specialized bodies such as the AIU, ITIA and CSAD are becoming the foundation of the credibility of sport. Every case of tampering with control particularly undermines trust because it raises the question of whether oversight systems are sufficiently protected from internal weaknesses. That is why the latest cases are not only disciplinary news, but also a reminder that the fight against doping is increasingly being conducted at administrative, medical, legal and organizational levels.
Kandie's case, provisional suspensions in tennis, sanctions in the UFC program and the extensive investigation in Georgian rugby together show the same tendency: sports organizations are trying to close the space not only for the use of prohibited substances, but also for bypassing control. Final decisions in individual cases have yet to show the scope of responsibility of each athlete. But it is already clear that trust in results will increasingly be based on demonstrable cooperation with the rules, and not only on sporting successes on the track, field, combat arena or tennis court.
Sources:
- Athletics Integrity Unit – public list of provisional suspensions and description of the status of Kibiwott Kandie's case (link)
- Athletics Integrity Unit – description of the disciplinary procedure, jurisdiction and testing data (link)
- International Tennis Integrity Agency – announcement on the provisional suspensions of Karlis Ozolins and Daniil Kakhniuk because of clostebol (link)
- International Tennis Integrity Agency – information on WADA's 2026 Prohibited List and rules in tennis (link)
- World Anti-Doping Agency – publication of the 2026 Prohibited List of substances and methods (link)
- Combat Sports Anti-Doping – overview of UFC anti-doping sanctions and related cases (link)
- UFC – official announcement on Conor McGregor's sanction because of missed tests (link)
- World Rugby – statement on anti-doping rule breaches in the Georgian national team (link)
- The Guardian – report on the suspension of Merab Sharikadze and the investigation into sample substitution in Georgian rugby (link)