Three Missed Doping Tests: What Should an Athlete Do?

Every professional athlete included in a registered testing pool is required to update their whereabouts information in the ADAMS system on a daily basis.

ADAMS (Anti-Doping Administration and Management System) is an online platform developed by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) that is used to store and share information related to doping control.

Through ADAMS, athletes are required to provide details about:

• their residential address;
• their training location;
• a specific one-hour time slot each day when the athlete will be available for testing.

The system is accessible to anti-doping organizations, international federations, and doping control officers. It ensures 24/7 access to an athlete’s whereabouts information, enabling unannounced out-of-competition testing.

Whereabouts Failure is an anti-doping rule violation that is not related to the presence of doping substances in an athlete’s body, but carries the same consequences as the use of prohibited substances.

There are two types of violations that fall under this definition:

1. Filing Failure — when an athlete fails to submit, submits inaccurate, or submits late information about their whereabouts.

2. Missed Test — when a doping control officer arrives at the specified time, but the athlete is not present at the location or fails to provide access to themselves.

If three such violations occur within a 12-month period, this constitutes an anti-doping rule violation under the World Anti-Doping Code.

📌 Important to remember:

• The athlete is strictly liable regardless of intent. Even if there was no intention to conceal anything, the violation is still recorded.
• The sanction — up to a 2-year period of ineligibility, even without the detection of prohibited substances.

The World Anti-Doping Code provides that if an athlete included in a registered testing pool commits three instances within a 12-month period of either missing a test or failing to provide (or providing inaccurate) whereabouts information, this constitutes a full anti-doping rule violation. The combination of these three instances does not matter — the system counts them all.

🗓 Important: the calculation is not based on the calendar year but on a “rolling 12-month window.” For example, if the first violation is recorded on 10 May 2024, the next two must occur no later than 9 May 2025, inclusive.

📍 The date of the violation is considered:

• for a missed test — the day the test was scheduled to take place;
• for a filing failure — the last day of the deadline for submitting or updating the information.

WADA, in its Q&A on Whereabouts Failures, explains that three whereabouts-related violations (in any combination of filing failures and missed tests) within a single 12-month period are grounds for sanctions.

For example, if an athlete fails to update whereabouts data once and is absent during the specified time slot twice, this formally amounts to a violation.

Even a change of address or schedule on the day of testing, without updating the system, will be considered a filing failure, regardless of the athlete’s intent.

The AIU (Athletics Integrity Unit) regularly publishes disciplinary decisions showing how this works in practice. For instance, violations recorded in June and December of one year, and again in June of the following year, still fell within a single 12-month window — resulting in a period of ineligibility.

💡 CAS case law contains many examples where three violations under Article 2.4 of the World Anti-Doping Code (failure to provide accurate whereabouts information) — even without a single positive doping test — led to a two-year period of ineligibility. In elite sport, such a “technicality” can cost an athlete a place on the team, medals, and sponsorship contracts.

In elite sport, there are no small details. A single late update of whereabouts information — and instead of preparing for competition, an athlete may find themselves writing explanations for the anti-doping panel.

We have reviewed the recommendations of various anti-doping organizations and highlighted those we consider the most practical. In particular, USADA (the United States Anti-Doping Agency) advises:

1. Set reminders — your phone, calendar, or email should alert you when it is time to update your whereabouts information in the ADAMS system.
2. Regularly check your information in the Athlete Central app — the official tool for submitting whereabouts, where every entry must be accurate and up-to-date.
3. Promptly make changes if your schedule or location changes — even last-minute plans should be immediately recorded in the system to avoid misunderstandings.
4. Clearly indicate your one-hour time slot for availability — accounting for possible delays or travel time.

Following these rules significantly reduces the risk of an accidental missed test or error that could lead to serious consequences — up to a two-year period of ineligibility.

💬 From our practice. Most suspensions occur not because of intentional violations, but due to simple negligence or a technical error in using the app. However, under anti-doping rules, even a technical failure is formally considered a violation and does not always provide grounds to avoid sanctions.

In a system where integrity must be absolute, an athlete must not only remain “clean” but also always be available for testing. Otherwise, it is not only the result but the entire sporting career that may be at risk.

1) Verify whether there are indeed three violations within a 12-month period
The first step is to review the dates to determine whether the combination of three Filing Failures and/or Missed Tests actually occurred within a single 12-month period (note: this period is not tied to the calendar year). Case practice shows that anti-doping organizations sometimes make calculation errors — even a few days’ difference can affect whether a violation exists.

2) Provide written explanations and initiate an administrative review
Do not admit the violation until the facts are confirmed. At the stage of providing explanations, you should:

• challenge the alleged violation (e.g., the Doping Control Officer arrived outside the designated 60-minute time slot; the address was incorrect; there was an error in recording the time or time zone);
• argue that the requirements of the International Standard for Results Management (ISRM) for qualifying a Filing Failure/Missed Test were not met;
• simultaneously file a request for review of previous violations with the relevant organization (AIU, NADO, IF). If one of the previous violations can be overturned, the “three strikes” combination may be reduced to two, avoiding sanctions.

3) Gather and submit evidence to rebut the violation or reduce fault
To apply the No Significant Fault or Negligence principle, or to have the episode completely dismissed, you should prepare and submit:

• logs, screenshots, and other data from Athlete Central/ADAMS, including submission logs and confirmations;
• medical records (treatment, hospitalization, injuries);
• official certificates confirming presence in a conflict zone or other circumstances restricting movement;
• documents or correspondence confirming communication with the federation, coach, or doping control officer;
• technical evidence of system failures (timestamps, screenshots, official error notifications).

4) Initiate a hearing
If the administrative review is unsuccessful, the athlete has the right to request a hearing before the relevant disciplinary body of the anti-doping organization. Depending on the sport and the rules of the specific federation, further appeals may be lodged with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne, Switzerland.

In cases involving three missed doping tests, the outcome often shapes not only the athlete’s fate, but also the evolving interpretation of anti-doping rules. Sometimes athletes manage to demonstrate mitigating circumstances or even overturn part of the allegations.

Christian Coleman — the sprinter who bought time

In CAS case 2020/A/7528, American sprinter and world 100 m champion Christian Coleman faced a potential two-year period of ineligibility after committing three Whereabouts Failures within a 12-month period.

One failure occurred on a day when he was absent from home during the testing window because he had gone shopping in the busy holiday period.

Coleman appealed, arguing that one of the three failures did not fall within the relevant 12-month window under the World Anti-Doping Code, so only two ought to count.

The CAS partially upheld his argument, excluding one of the violations but upholding the other two. As a result, the ineligibility period was reduced from two years to 18 months, giving Coleman a realistic opportunity to return in time for the next season. His case remains a key precedent in interpreting the boundaries of the 12-month window. :contentReference[oaicite:1]{index=1}

Christine Ohuruogu — a comeback after a one-year ban

In CAS case 2006/A/1165, British sprinter and future Olympic champion Christine Ohuruogu missed three out-of-competition tests due to Whereabouts errors and received a one-year ban. She chose not to challenge the finding of violations.

Upon completing her suspension, Ohuruogu proved her resilience by claiming gold at the 2007 World Championships and Olympic gold in 2008 —demonstrating that peak performance is possible even after a significant setback.

Receiving a third Whereabouts violation notice is not necessarily the end. Athletes retain the right to defend each incident, present mitigating factors, or challenge the interpretation. A well-structured legal approach, comprehensive documentation, and timely action can significantly reduce the sanction—or even avert a suspension entirely.