Kenyan marathon star Peres Jepchirchir has been provisionally suspended by the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) following an adverse analytical finding for erythropoietin (EPO), placing one of the country’s most accomplished distance runners at the centre of a major athletics controversy.

The AIU announced the suspension on October 23 after an out-of-competition sample collected in Kenya before Jepchirchir’s Sydney Marathon victory returned the finding. The 33-year-old won the Australian race on August 30 in two hours, 18 minutes and 31 seconds, finishing more than three minutes ahead of compatriot Irine Cheptai.

A provisional suspension is not a final finding of guilt. Jepchirchir is entitled to due process as the anti-doping proceedings continue, and her Sydney victory has not been automatically annulled by the announcement.

What the EPO finding means

EPO, or erythropoietin, is a hormone that stimulates the production of red blood cells, increasing the blood’s capacity to carry oxygen. Its synthetic forms are prohibited in sport because they can enhance endurance performance.

The suspension prevents Jepchirchir from competing in sanctioned events while her case proceeds. Any final sanction, and the consequences for her competition results, will depend on the outcome of the disciplinary process.

Her agent, Gianni Demadonna, told Reuters he felt “terrible about what happened” and said athletes who use performance-enhancing drugs should be disqualified. He also expressed shock at the finding, citing Jepchirchir’s long career and previous record with doping controls.

According to Demadonna’s account to LetsRun, the sample was collected on July 17, approximately six weeks before the Sydney race. He also described difficulties encountered by doping control officers when attempting to enter Jepchirchir’s home. These details have been attributed to her agent and should not be treated as independent findings by the AIU.

The Sydney Marathon organisers said they were “extremely disappointed” by the news but emphasised that Jepchirchir was entitled to due process. They also reaffirmed their commitment to clean competition and fair results.

A decorated career faces an uncertain chapter

Jepchirchir’s standing in international athletics makes the case particularly consequential. She won Olympic marathon gold at the Tokyo Games in 2021 and the women’s world marathon title in Tokyo in 2025, edging Ethiopia’s Tigst Assefa by two seconds.

Her major marathon victories also include New York in 2021, Boston in 2022, London in 2024 and Sydney in 2026. At the London Marathon, she ran 2:16:16, setting what was then the women-only world record.

The Sydney result was another significant achievement, adding a major title to a career built on success at the sport’s highest level. The current proceedings, however, leave the longer-term status of that victory uncertain.

Under Abbott World Marathon Majors rules, an athlete who receives a doping ban of three months or longer is excluded from all eight events for life, according to the Sydney Marathon organisers. Any impact on Jepchirchir’s title and record will depend on the eventual outcome and applicable rules.

Another test for Kenyan athletics

The case arrives as Kenya continues to face scrutiny over anti-doping compliance. More than 140 Kenyan athletes have been sanctioned since the AIU was established in 2017, according to Reuters reporting.

Jepchirchir’s suspension also comes as Nairobi prepares to host the 2029 World Athletics Championships, the first senior edition of the competition scheduled to take place in Africa.

For Kenyan athletics, the stakes extend beyond an individual athlete. The integrity of results influences the credibility of competitions, the standing of athletes who compete cleanly and the confidence of fans, sponsors and event organisers.

For now, Jepchirchir’s case remains unresolved. The decisive question is whether the adverse analytical finding will result in a confirmed anti-doping violation or be successfully contested through the established process. Until then, the distinction between a provisional suspension and a final sanction remains essential.