By: Anne Boniface
In early March 2026, two-time Olympic medalist Fred Kerley was sentenced to a two-year competition ban for an anti-doping rules violation. The ban for the track-and-field athlete was not due to the use of a prohibited substance—although he was the first American man slated to compete in the upcoming Enhanced Games—but rather for a whereabouts violation.
Every three months, professional athletes must register their locations with the relevant anti-doping organization (ADO) and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) via the Anti-Doping Administration & Management System (ADAMS) platform. The athlete must be found at this location for a one-hour daily time slot during this three-month period. If any changes occur, such as unforeseen circumstances, the athlete must update their location in ADAMS.
Under WADA regulations (the most recent of which were set in 2021), an athlete’s failure to correctly file their information in ADAMS is known as a filing failure. If an athlete correctly files but is not found at the slotted location during their daily period, or is unavailable for testing during that period, a missed test has occurred. Any three missed tests or filing failures in a twelve-month period results in an anti-doping rules violation (ADRV).
The consequences for this ADRV can be severe. Per WADA Code § 10.3.2, the athlete in question may be banned from their sport for a period of one to two years, as was the case with Fred Kerley. This sanction begins at a period of two years but is “subject to a reduction down to one year, depending on the Athlete’s degree of [f]ault.” Further, the athlete may also be subjected to stripping of all results and medals during the period of competition after the third whereabouts failure.
Herein lies the problem. Rather than sanctioning an athlete for a period of one year and increasing the period of ineligibility depending on aggravating circumstances, the Code chooses to do the reverse and punish an administrative violation the same way as a drug case. Athletes who fail a drug test are subjected to a period of ineligibility for two to four years under WADA Code § 10.1, depending on whether the failure was intentional. This means an athlete who commits three whereabouts failures (and thus an ADRV) will likely be sanctioned for the same term as an athlete who uses prohibited substances. One such case occurred in November 2025 when Olympic medalist Penny Oleksiak was banned from competing in swimming until July 2027 for a whereabouts ADRV. Athletes such as Oleksiak will also be stripped of their competitive results under Code § 10.1, as was the case for Michelle-Lee Ahye, who was stripped of her results and medals from the 2019 Pan American Games in Peru. Whereabouts failures do not involve the use of prohibited substances. Oftentimes an athlete’s tests are negative: no sporting advantage was gained as a result of the whereabouts failure and no drug violations occurred. Despite this, athletes can still be found guilty of a doping violation and be stripped of fairly won results.
In essence, the sanctions for a whereabouts ADRV reverse the presumption of fault: rather than proving aggravating circumstances or intent, an athlete is instead burdened with proving why they deserve leniency. While this may serve as an effective deterrent, it disproportionately affects athletes whose mishaps result from unintentional conduct. In one such example, Christine Ohuruogu was handed a one-year period of ineligibility from track and field. At the time, this was not the minimum sentence. Two of her whereabouts failures resulted from a change in training location by her coach and a third from a fluctuating rehab schedule. These administrative failures were sufficient to trigger a ban. The Court of Arbitration for Sport upheld her punishment, believing it to be proportional to her violation despite her mitigating arguments. While there is no question of her violation and the justification of imposing a sanction, the argument today lies in the idea of how the sports world applies these sanctions in the first place.
The current framework relies on mitigation to decrease a sentence, rather than aggravating factors to increase it. While this certainly increases the deterrence factor against committing a whereabouts failure, it cannot be said that taking the aggravating approach would eliminate said deterrence. A year-long period of ineligibility is significant for athletes who face a short period of eligibility in their sport. In the case of Oleksiak, her ban meant she could not compete in the World Championship. For other athletes, even only twelve months means missing out on the Olympics or a national title. For many, this is their only shot. As such, the deterrence factor still exists when beginning the sanctioning period at one year.
Changing the application of the whereabouts sanctioning rules from mitigation to aggravation would also mean a more equitable application of the rules. Beginning with a one-year baseline for this ADRV, and increasing the sanction based on aggravating factors, still reflects the seriousness of the violation while also differentiating between intentional evasion and administrative error.
Further, the current sanctions result in athletes being stripped of their medals for administrative wrongdoing. In cases where banned substances are used, whether intentional or not, the sporting integrity of the game is compromised. As such, results must be stripped for the unfair advantage. In the case of a whereabouts failure, no such advantage was gained. How then can this sanction be justified? No sporting advantage was gained and the integrity of the competition was not compromised. In the case of Alex Rasmussen, the Court of Arbitration for Sport applied this logic and allowed him to retain his results. However, that only applied to the facts of Rasmussen’s case. As a result, many athletes, such as skier Florian Wilmsmann, are stripped of results despite no sporting effect resulting from the whereabouts failure. This should not be the standard. If no “on-field” advantage was gained, no “on-field” sanction should apply.
Ultimately, whereabouts rules play a crucial role in maintaining the integrity of sport and preventing doping violations from occurring by ensuring proper testing may take place. However, the current framework risks the imposition of disproportionate penalties relative to the nature of the violation. Administrative failures are not equivalent to true doping violations, particularly where no competitive advantage was gained. Applying a framework using the one-year baseline and increasing it as a result of aggravating circumstances would ensure a more equitable and fair application of anti-doping rules while also maintaining their deterrent effect.
