by Larry Eder
Wilson Kipsang, photo by KBC.Co.Ke
Wilson Kipsang is being accused of tampering with evidence and missing 4 whereabouts tests. The Athletics Integrity Unit has banned Kipsang for 4 years, and it does not look good for the former world record holder. The AIU has no choice. It also should be clear that it is one thing to miss wherabout tests, it is another to fabricate photos to prove a pretend landslide. Sean Ingle explains it all in this piece in the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/jul/03/wilson-kipsang-hit-with-four-year-ban-for-violating-anti-doping-rules.
I have enjoyed my interviews with Wilson KIpsang. I like the guy. But, I have to admit, I am totally disappointed in his alleged behavior.
My two cents: if one fakes testimony, ban should go to life.
I am cautious about AIU, but this tells the sport that no one should get an out of jail card. I hope they continue with this vigilance.
W. Kipsang gets 4 years
NAIROBI (KEN): Former world marathon record-holder Wilson Kipsang has been banned for four years for whereabouts failures and tampering by providing false evidence and witness testimony. His ineligibility started on 10 January and his 12th place from the 2019 London Marathon will be annulled. The twice London Marathon winner, who ran his world mark 2:03:23 in 2013 and improved by 10 seconds three years later, had four whereabouts failures from April 2018 to May 2019. The standard ban was increased after it was ruled he provided false evidence and witness testimony. He claimed he missed a test after being stuck behind an overturned lorry, but a photograph he submitted as evidence was found to be from three months later. The Athletics Integrity Unit said: “The AIU considers that the evidence demonstrates overwhelmingly that the athlete was engaged in tampering or attempted tampering in breach of the IAAF rules. The athlete engaged in fraudulent and deceitful conduct by providing deliberately misleading and false information to the AIU in an attempt to obstruct and delay the investigation into his explanation and/or prevent normal procedures from occurring, namely the recording of a missed test against him.” From guardian.co.uk.
