ADAK response to Edward Zakayo Pingua: Agency refutes claims of case mismanagement

• ADAK response to Edward Zakayo Pingua has absolved the agency
• Former athlete Edward Zakayo Pingua accused the agency of mishandling his doping case
• Pingua also accused ADAK officials of unfair treatment, unauthorized home visits, and biased hearing processes

ADAK response to Edward Zakayo Pingua has absolved the agency from accusations levelled against it over the handling of an athlete’s doping case.

The Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya (ADAK) issued a strong rebuttal following allegations made by former athlete Zakayo. He claimed on social media that the agency mishandled his disciplinary case and subjected him to intimidation.

In a detailed statement released on October 6, 2025, ADAK dismissed the accusations as false and misleading, asserting that all procedures followed were lawful and transparent.

ADAK Response to Edward Zakayo Pingua

According to the statement signed by ADAK Acting Chief Executive Officer Peninah Wahome, the agency acknowledged being in receipt of a viral Facebook post titled “Why I Left Athletics.”

Zakayo Pingua accused ADAK officials of unfair treatment, unauthorized home visits, and biased hearing processes. Wahome noted that the agency operates strictly under the Anti-Doping Act (2016), the World Anti-Doping Code, and International Standards for Results Management (ISRM).

Wahome stated that the claims “misrepresent the facts, the procedures followed, and the integrity with which all anti-doping cases are managed in Kenya.”

In its official ADAK response to Edward Zakayo Pingua, the agency firmly denied allegations of harassment, unauthorized visits, or any form of intimidation towards the athlete or his family.

Wahome clarified that all engagements between ADAK and athletes are formal, documented, and conducted within the legal framework of Kenya’s anti-doping laws.

She noted that “if anyone claims to act on ADAK’s behalf outside formal communication channels, the Agency urges immediate reporting for investigation.”

ADAK further explained that its hearings and case management procedures are designed to ensure accessibility and fairness for all athletes, regardless of their financial or geographical circumstances.

Virtual hearings, which Zakayo criticized in his post, are internationally recognized and widely adopted to allow athletes who reside outside Nairobi to participate without logistical constraints.

Was Zakayo Pingua Fairly Represented?

Addressing claims that the athlete’s lawyer was imposed on him, Wahome reiterated that all athletes facing anti-doping charges have the right to choose their own legal counsel.

In cases where athletes cannot afford a lawyer, the Sports Disputes Tribunal (SDT) facilitates independent pro bono counsel, ensuring impartiality.

Further ADAK response to Edward Zakayo Pingua also maintained that it operates independently from Athletics Kenya (AK), athlete management agencies, and sponsors.

The agency said its decisions are based solely on scientific evidence, verified laboratory results, and the strict liability principle outlined by the World Anti-Doping Code.

“The suggestion that ADAK collaborates with other entities to manipulate or unfairly target an athlete is entirely false and baseless,” Wahome said.

Details of Zakayo Pingua’s Case

The agency confirmed that Zakayo’s disciplinary matter had already been heard and determined by the Sports Disputes Tribunal on May 8, 2025 (Case No. SDTADK E072 of 2024).

The tribunal found the athlete guilty of two missed tests (on February 3 and April 3, 2024) and one filing failure during the first quarter of 2024.

While he had argued that he lost access to his phone and thus could not update his whereabouts in the ADAMS system, the tribunal ruled that such circumstances did not exempt him from responsibility.

Under the strict-liability framework, athletes are fully accountable for maintaining accurate whereabouts information to facilitate random testing.

The decision, according to ADAK response to Edward Zakayo Pingua was reasoned, written, and issued with a clear right of appeal.

First to the SDT and, if desired, to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne, Switzerland.

ADAK expressed understanding of the emotional toll disciplinary cases can have on athletes, acknowledging that “the mental and emotional challenges athletes face during disciplinary processes are real and regrettable.”

However, Wahome stressed that emotional distress cannot replace adherence to established procedures.

“ADAK remains committed to supporting athletes through Clean Sport education,” she said. “But due process and accountability must still be upheld.”

The agency also urged the public and media to exercise caution when sharing unverified information, warning that such actions could damage the integrity of Kenya’s anti-doping framework.

“The public should verify facts before amplifying misleading allegations that could undermine confidence in Kenya’s anti-doping system,” Wahome cautioned.