Why USADA’s sanction for Kartik Kumar stops short of what AIU or NADA would have imposed?

Kartik Kumar, the 2023 Asian Games silver medallist in the 10,000m, was apparently spared a stiffer sanction by the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA).

The Indian athlete, who was part of a group training in Colorado Springs, tested positive twice this year, in February and March, in out-of-competition tests conducted by USADA. The two tests were treated as a single offence since he had not been notified of the first result when the second sample was collected.

Kumar received a three-year suspension after admitting the offence within the stipulated 20-day period, which earned him a one-year reduction from the standard four-year sanction for steroid use. His suspension is effective from April 10, 2025, and his results will be annulled from February 27, 2025.

The one-year reduction was granted as per the rules. The question, however, is why “aggravating circumstances” were not invoked, given the nature of the violations. Kumar tested positive for four steroids: methandienone, stanozolol, clostebol, and testosterone.

There is no mention of “aggravating circumstances” in USADA’s press release issued on Wednesday. Under the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Code, the use of multiple banned substances falls under the “aggravating circumstances” clause. If established, it can add up to two years to a sanction.

In this case, Kumar accepted the charge to secure a one-year reduction. Even if the “aggravating circumstances” clause had been applied, that reduction would still have been available, but the total period of ineligibility could have increased from four years to six before the reduction. That would have resulted in a five-year suspension.

ALSO READ | Asian Games 2014 hammer thrower medallist Manju Bala suspended for doping

It is not clear whether USADA routinely applies the “aggravating circumstances” provision under Code Article 10.4. There is no known instance of it invoking this clause in past decisions.

The Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) of World Athletics is the agency that most consistently uses this rule. In recent years, India’s National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA) has also begun applying it.

A recent AIU example is the case of Kenyan marathoner Cornelius Kiplagat, who tested positive for EPO and CERA in July of this year. He was suspended for five years. Though the substances are related and both enhance red blood cell production and endurance, they were treated as separate violations and fell under “aggravating circumstances”.

NADA suspended steeplechaser and cross-country runner Bhavishya for five years in March this year after she tested positive for darbepoetin (dEPO), similar to EPO, and mephentermine, a non-specified stimulant. She accepted a reduced sanction under Article 10.8.1 and received five years instead of six for “aggravating circumstances”.

NADA also suspended bodybuilder Dhanraj last year for six years for using multiple substances, boldenone and stanozolol. For both NADA and the AIU, increasing sanctions to six years in cases involving multiple steroids has been routine. Few other anti-doping agencies, if any, take this approach.

This creates an inconsistency. Indian athletes and those under AIU jurisdiction face longer sanctions under this clause, while athletes governed by several other anti-doping agencies worldwide do not. In this instance, an Indian athlete has, perhaps for the first time, received a milder sanction from another national anti-doping agency for an out-of-competition test.

Any anti-doping agency has the authority to test an athlete who belongs to that country, is competing in that country, or is training there, aside from international competitions governed by relevant international federations. The IOC and IPC also have such powers, as do bodies like the Olympic Council of Asia (OCA) and the Commonwealth Games Federation (CGF).

A testing authority also handles “results management” and can conduct hearings or process cases. Since Kumar accepted the sanction, he cannot appeal. WADA and the AIU retain the right to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) if they disagree with the decision.

Had the hearing been handled by either the AIU or NADA, Kumar might have received a longer period of ineligibility.

Published on Nov 13, 2025