Italian race walker Alex Schwazer is facing a third doping accusation following a positive test for EPO after his victory at the German Championships in Kelsterbach on April 26. The athlete, currently 41, denies the findings and has demanded the analysis of a third, independently preserved sample, challenging the integrity of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and the Cologne laboratory, according to reports by Marco Bonarrigo for Corriere della Sera.
Why is the third sample a point of contention?
The controversy centers on a third vial of urine, which Schwazer’s camp claims was collected during the same testing session and retained by his former coach, Sandro Donati. According to attorney Gerhard Brandstätter, the defense team has formally requested this “Sample C” be analyzed to prove the athlete’s innocence. However, legal experts note that anti-doping protocols generally do not recognize samples kept outside the official chain of custody. By insisting on this condition, Schwazer’s team has effectively created a legal standoff, arguing that a refusal to test the third sample confirms their suspicion of systemic bias.
Under German law, doping is a criminal offense. Unlike in Italy, where the focus is primarily on sporting sanctions, athletes found guilty of doping in Germany face potential prison sentences ranging from one to three years.
How does this case compare to the 2016 allegations?
This latest development mirrors the complexity of the 2016 scandal, where Schwazer was disqualified after an alleged conspiracy involving the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) and the Cologne laboratory. While the 2016 case focused on a long-standing battle against what the athlete described as a “rotten” system, the current situation involves a more localized conflict. The 2016 case relied on intricate claims of laboratory tampering; the current case involves a simple, high-detectability substance—EPO—which raises questions about why an experienced athlete would risk a return to competition with such easily traceable methods.
What are the next steps in the legal process?
The case has already been forwarded to the German public prosecutor’s office. Despite the athlete’s public declaration of innocence, Sandro Donati—now a coach for the Italian Athletics Federation—has publicly distanced himself from the athlete’s recent competitive return. Donati confirmed in a written statement that he had advised Schwazer against competing and is no longer involved in his training, though he maintains a supportive personal relationship with the walker.
Pro Tip: Understanding Anti-Doping Protocols
Professional athletes are subject to the World Anti-Doping Code, which mandates a strict chain of custody for all samples. The “A” and “B” samples are the only legally recognized evidence in disciplinary proceedings. Requests to include unofficial samples—like the “Sample C” mentioned by the Schwazer camp—are almost universally rejected by sporting tribunals to maintain the integrity and standardization of the testing process.
Frequently Asked Questions
- Is Alex Schwazer still competing? As of June 2026, his status remains in flux following the positive test results from the German Championships.
- Why is the Cologne laboratory involved? The Cologne lab is an accredited WADA facility; it was involved in both the 2016 testing and the current analysis, which is the primary source of the defense’s skepticism.
- What happens if the athlete refuses the official counter-analysis? Schwazer has stated he will forgo the standard “B” sample test unless the “C” sample is also analyzed, a move that would likely accelerate his formal disqualification by anti-doping authorities.
Stay informed on the latest developments in international athletics and anti-doping regulations. Subscribe to our newsletter for deep dives into the integrity of professional sports.
Keep reading