The Athletics Integrity Unit does not take doping violations lightly. After recently banning Fred Kerley for two years, that message has now hit home for one of India’s rising stars. The 26-year-old sprinter was a national hope in the 400m and 200m events, but now the AIU has suspended her.

The athlete, Sneha Kolleri, was found to have violated anti-doping rules due to the presence of Stanozolol, a banned anabolic steroid listed under the WADA 2025 Prohibited List. AIU also rejected her claim that her positive test came from a contaminated supplement.

Her ban was reduced to three years from the standard four due to early acceptance. But how did all this unfold?

The investigation began with a series of tests in 2025. Two samples collected in Trivandrum on March 24 and 31, one in-competition and one out-of-competition, both returned negative results. The third sample, taken in Chandigarh on April 30, was also initially negative.

However, the turning point came on May 10, when a sample collected in Guangzhou, China, during target testing was sent to a WADA-accredited lab in Paris.

This sample tested positive for Stanozolol metabolites. But, Sneha claimed that the positive test was caused by a whey protein supplement, Muscletech Nitrotech 100% Whey Gold Protein (Double Chocolate flavour), which she had purchased in March 2025.

She also gave out samples of the supplement to be tested just to prove her argument that the positive test was a result of contamination.

However, the AIU tested a container of the same batch, which was sealed independently, and no Stanozolol was detected, thus invalidating her statement.

Further examination found that the unsealed product that she indeed took contained Stanozolol, sufficient to achieve the positive test. Experts confirmed these findings, leaving no doubt about the violation.

So, the AIU conducted two interviews to review Sneha’s explanations and all the evidence. Even she requested to lift the provisional suspension, but was denied on February 17, 2026, as her account contradicted the lab results and the timeline of supplement use.

On March 3, 2026, Sneha admitted to the anti-doping rule violation, which allowed her ban to be reduced from four years to three because of her early acceptance.

As a result, Sneha will be suspended for three years. All results, medals, awards, points, and prize money from April 30, 2025, onward are disqualified, affecting both her individual performances and relay team results.

While Sneha’s ban is for a doping violation, another athlete, Fred Kerley, was also recently sanctioned by the AIU, but for a different reason.

Why was Fred Kerley hit with a two-year ban over missed tests

Kerley was handed a two-year suspension by the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) after missing three mandatory doping tests, known as “whereabouts failures,” within 12 months between May 11 and December 6, 2024.

The first incident occurred on May 11, when a doping control officer arrived at the location Kerley had listed for his one-hour testing window, but could not find him. Fred Kerley later said he was in Jamaica at the time and claimed that an app glitch prevented his updated whereabouts from being registered.

The second failure came on June 13, 2024, which Kerley did not contest. A third missed test was recorded on December 6, 2024, triggering an AIU investigation.

Following the review, the AIU Disciplinary and Appeals Tribunal ruled that Kerley had violated the whereabouts rules and imposed a two-year ban effective until August 11, 2027. His competitive results from December 6, 2024, to August 12, 2025, were annulled, and he was ordered to cover legal costs in addition to serving the suspension.

The ban itself isn’t the only thing making headlines. Right after the ruling went public, Fred Kerley pointed out a detail in the decision that caught him off guard. According to the notice, he must pay $3,000 to World Athletics to cover legal expenses linked to the case.

Kerley later explained on X, “It was a random number from Mexico that looked like a scam call, and I’m supposed to answer that?”

While there are still questions to be answered, it just goes to show how strict the rules are for an athlete at this level. What’s your take on these cases? Share it with us in the comments below!