Athletics — Law & Regulation FAQ

World Athletics (formerly the IAAF) sets the international rules of competition, including eligibility regulations. Its decisions are subject to appeal at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The AIU is the independent body responsible for anti-doping and integrity matters in athletics on World Athletics’s behalf — including testing, results management, and imposing first-instance sanctions.

Generally no — athletes competing under a federation’s rules typically agree to CAS’s exclusive jurisdiction. Judicial review of a CAS award is limited and available only through the Swiss Federal Tribunal, on narrow procedural grounds.

Yes — the Welteji case in our library shows World Athletics itself appealing an AIU first-instance ruling to CAS, seeking a longer sanction.

Under the current WADA Code, the standard sanction is four years for a non-specified substance and two years for a specified substance, though both can be reduced or extended depending on intent and cooperation.

Specified substances are those more likely to have been used for a purpose other than performance enhancement (and so carry a lighter presumptive sanction); non-specified substances carry the presumption of intentional use and the heavier four-year sanction unless the athlete proves otherwise.

Yes. Under the current Code, prompt admission and acceptance of consequences can reduce an otherwise four-year-or-longer sanction by one year, as seen in both the Solomon and Korir cases in our library.

It’s a separate, and often more serious, violation — evasion or refusal of a test can itself carry a lengthy ban, as in the Welteji case in our library, where World Athletics specifically appealed for a four-year sanction on evasion grounds.

The 2027 Code (effective 1 January 2027) keeps the core two-year/four-year structure but adds new flexibility — including a 25% reduction for early admission on sanctions under four years, and new shorter sanction bands for certain substances of abuse.

Typically yes, from the date of the sample or the violation onward — both the Welteji and Chelangat cases in our library involved disqualification of results going back to specific dates, including, in Welteji’s case, a personal best performance.

The AIU can extend a sanction beyond the standard term where it finds aggravating circumstances — as in the Chelangat case in our library, where a five-year ban was imposed beyond the standard four-year term for a non-specified substance.

Formal, advance permission to use an otherwise prohibited substance or method for a genuine medical reason. Testing positive without a pre-approved TUE is treated as a violation even if a legitimate medical reason exists, unless it is later formally approved.

World Athletics rules that required certain female athletes with specific differences of sex development to medically manage their testosterone levels to compete in restricted events. The Semenya case in our library is the leading authority on this issue.

Yes — the panel found the rules discriminatory but held the discrimination was, on the facts before it, a proportionate means of preserving fair competition. The case has continued through further review since.

Only narrowly — the Semenya case itself went on to the Swiss Federal Tribunal and, in 2025, the European Court of Human Rights Grand Chamber, which examined Switzerland’s procedural handling of the case rather than re-deciding the underlying sports question.

Yes — several real cases in our library show a one-year reduction for prompt admission and cooperation, turning what would otherwise be a four-year ban into three. See AIU v. Blessing Solomon and AIU v. Albert Korir.

Results are typically disqualified from the date of the underlying offence onward, not just from the date the sanction is announced — in our Welteji case, this included annulling a personal-best performance.

Yes — where a coach or other support personnel is found to have facilitated doping, particularly involving a minor athlete, the AIU can impose severe sanctions directly on that individual, up to a lifetime ban.

Not automatically, but it is treated very seriously — refusal or evasion of testing is its own distinct violation, separate from a positive test, and World Athletics has specifically appealed for longer sanctions in cases involving evasion.