The IAAF offers its sincerest apologies to the athletes who believed their personal and medical information was secure with us. We will continue to work with cyber incident response (CIR) firm Context Information Security, who identified the Fancy Bear cyber-attack which we announced in April to create a safe environment. Context believes that the information published yesterday emanates from that attack.
“There can be no excuse for the leaking of personal and medical data or the releasing of information on informants and ongoing investigations as this puts those individuals involved at risk and harms the fight against doping,” said IAAF President Sebastian Coe. “However, we must acknowledge that we need to look at our processes.”
We continue to investigate any suspicion of doping in a robust way in accordance with applicable protocols and under WADA’s supervision. It would be wrong to make assumptions based upon leaked documents without the full evidence and that evidence being put in context. Single data readings of an Athlete’s Biological Passport (ABP) cannot alone constitute evidence of doping. All atypical ABP profiles are automatically reviewed in the Anti-Doping Administration and Management System (ADAMS) following the processes and protocols of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA).
Information on Athlete Biological Passport process:
The monitoring and review of ABP profiles recorded under the IAAF’s anti-doping programme are conducted in strict accordance with the applicable WADA Regulations, by external independent experts and through ADAMS. It consists of a multi-stage review process with a specific official terminology set out in accordance with WADA’s result management regulations to assist anti-doping organisations in the implementation and prioritisation of their ABP Programme.
The official terminology which includes “Likely doping”, “Passport suspicious; Further data is required”, “Likely medical condition”, “Normal”, “Cancelled by APMU” (Athletes Passport Management Unit) are used to classify profiles flagged as “atypical” by the ADAMS mathematical model, indicating whether or not an athlete’s biological passport profile should be further investigated. It does not provide a final determination on whether or not an athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation. It is a dynamic process in which the status of an athlete’s profile can change at any time.