Norah Jeruto CLEARED

LRC's recap and analysis of the case is now up:

letsrun.com

Steeplechase World Champ Norah Jeruto's ABP Drug Suspension Overturned By Tribunal

LetsRun.com

Norah Jeruto is the second world champion in three months to have an AIU suspension overturned on appeal, following Tobi Amusan's whereabouts case in August.

Link:www.letsrun.com/news/2023/11/steeplech...

PS. We will admit we were pretty critical of the AIU as we they should never wait 2+ years to charge a case. What could explain that type of wait? Either ineptitude which makes is unacceptable as it makes it very hard for someone to mount a good defense. How is someone supposed to remember what they were doing every day 3 years ago?

Or it reflects doubt as to whether they were certain their case was air-tight. And it's kind of like replay in the pro sports, if it takes you forever to come to a conclusion, then doesn't that mean your conclusion isn't airtight which it has to be in a case like this?

I think we agree. Whether Jeruto is microdosing I don’t know but it seems it is very difficult to prove even if you are targeting someone. In this case they thought she was, but they a) couldn’t detect the synthetic EPO b) couldn’t conclusively prove it was the cause of the values. And then despite heavy, random OOC testing throughout 2021-2 they were unable to get the positive test or outlandish off score they needed.
To Rojo above I think them trying to get a more conclusive proof of doping was the reason for the delay. I think they were continually trying to bust her for blood doping, but never got that evidence of it despite the blood loss. Then they went onto EPO but never got better samples than the ones they ID’ed that had short-lived scores and weren’t blatantly obvious. At that point they probably should’ve thrown their hands up but it seems they went with the approach of “where there’s smoke theres fire.” Not a good approach for the forum where they’ll throw out a weak case (the low blood values) and then you’re left with the unconvincing case by itself.

Kazakhstan jumping hurdles for their top runner lmao. obvious af.

My guess is that they were also trying to get a positive test result, to make the case easier (i.e. target testing until they got her).

Also, when we're talking about elite athletes, knowing what happened two years ago in terms of their health shouldn't be such a big deal. My training diaries contain every hospital, doctor or (non-routine) dentist visit, haemoglobin and ferritin results and pretty much every cold or virus I've had for the past 30 years. I'm nowhere near an elite athlete and my diaries are not even that detailed. Surely something significant enough to change an athlete's blood profile would be recorded somewhere.

Going to be hard to win this one, so it's interesting they're trying. The blood loss thing is still going to be thrown out and I don't think they were able to make the EPO argument anything more than a theory.

As for the EPO argument: 4 experts said it was EPO, one - brought in by the lawyer, without ABP experience - said it could have been EPO or Covid. And the hospital said it was not Covid.

Looks like good reason to appeal.

I am wondering how many "experts" the lawyer called until someone would support the theory that her high Hct might have been caused by Covid.

They must really think she is guilty. What is next if she is cleared? Do they keep monitoring her?

If she gets "cleared" (better: let go because of reasonable doubt or probability estimates), they surely continue to watch her. See Coleman...

But let's look at her values: for two years, her HGB varied between 12.8 and 15.6 (at altitude). Then all of sudden she recorded values of 16.9, 17.1 and 17.2, along with a rise in RET% (in fall 2020). Pre-Covid, I bet she'd been banned.

Now it seems AIU needs to find evidence that at least in asymptomatic Covid patients HGB does not raise substantially - not sure whether such evidence exists. Alternatively they can just argue that Covid couldn't possible increase HGB by 10%, or not simultaneously with RET%, but then it turns into a he said she said scenario like last time.

That's a selective reading of it. The majority of the panel (their language) believed it might also be explained by a bout of COVID. Similarly the majority believed it might be caused by EPO usage. To win the appeal they would need to not have plausibility of EPO use, but a discrediting of the Dr.'s opinion. That feels unlikely to me that an appeals court would come down so differently on a debatable issue.

To the latest point by "Appeals Rule," it seems they have been targeting her for some time. It is behind my belief that they waited as long as possible for the "smoking gun." The deterrence factor here will be huge if she is doping, but if she's not she has nothing to fear. The only loser here seems to be a waste of resources as their obvious fixation (time, money, resources) on Jeruto might cause them to miss somebody else.

Yes, the panel (2 of the 3 panelists) went with the 1 of the 5 experts - I didn't read selectively, I just reported what the experts said. Yes, "discrediting of the Dr.'s opinion" is also what I meant: "AIU needs to find evidence that at least in asymptomatic Covid patients HGB does not raise substantially".

The whole story is actually quite important for past and future cases. If (even undetected) Covid may indeed increase HGB from 15 to 17 for a 5 -6 week period (17.1 on Sep 28 and 17.2 on Nov 5), then World Athletics needs to go back and re-check all ABP cases since late 2019.

Then also EPO users can safely use more from now on, having the Covid excuse at the ready.