Is Sabastian Sawe showing that the sport is cleaner than we thought?

eagleeye wrote:

The main thing this whole Sawe discussion has made me realize is just how expensive it would be to effectively clean up the sport (and be confident about it). These lines from Mr. Gault's (fantastic as usual) piece especially stuck out to me:

"Clothier noted that the AIU tested Chepngetich 15 times out of competition in 2024. Yet she was still able to pass every one and set a world record of 2:09:56 in Chicago."

If we need to test athletes 25-30 times in a year to have a relatively high confidence that they are clean (and testing frequency is not the only thing that matters), we're completely f***ed.

A punishment of 2-4 years away from competition isn't severe enough to disincentivize. A confirmed doping instance (100% positive, not just a missed test) should be met with a lifetime ban from competition, a monetary fine equivalent to all prize money earned, and a heck of a lot more shame than we currently give out. Don't underestimate shame. If you cheat the sport and get caught, you should be made to feel bad about that decision for at least as long as until you're out of competition age.

THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:

Half a Dozen Reasons wrote:

Berardelli currently has six athletes under suspension for drug use - that we know of. Sawe is radioactive, so are teammates Wanyonyi and Phanuel Koech and everyone else under Berardelli.

I would suggest that anyone who just assumes he is doping reads this update on his testing program by Jonathan Gault:

Some important quotes from Brett Clothier of the AIU:
“[Marathon runners] are, even at the moment, the highest-tested athletes in the world, and the anti-doping systems we have operating in Sabastian’s country in Kenya is the best testing that’s going on anywhere in the world,” Clothier said. “That’s the situation, but people are still wanting to do even more if we can, as an industry."
“It’s really encouraging for our sport that this special program has taken place. It’s an athlete that initiated it, supported by his management team and his sponsor…We hope it can be an example that spurs even more investment in anti-doping so that the fans can have faith in the outcome of these great races.”

The upshot is Sawe/Adidas are putting up $50K again for him to get 25 unannounced tests throughout the season (this was the AIU's decision to more efficiently use the funding...it could also pay dividends as his second marathon is likely to be a World Record attempt again).

For the conspiracy theorists, you now have to believe that Clothier is virtue-signaling and lying through his teeth as it's constantly invoked by some that road runners aren't tested, the tests in Kenya are made-up, or that athletes are being left off the hook. That's an interesting take considering the number of athletes large and small in stature being busted, especially in road racing.

Link:www.letsrun.com/news/2026/04/how-sabas...

Now, I'd wish Rosa/Kiplimo/Nike would do the same thing for him, but I am not holding my breath.

automorphic wrote:

There are lots of individualized arguments about why a specific runner might be clear or dirty, like their coach/agent/training partners, their progression, or of course a positive test. But ultimately, the reason a doping cloud hangs over the sport isn't that each runner is individually suspicious, but that the whole sport "must" be dirty. The argument goes as follows:

Suppose a marathoner runs 2:02, and that doping helps 4 minutes. Either he is a doper who would run 2:06 clean, or he's clean and would run 1:58 dirty. We know there are guys with 2:06 talent; probably some of them dope. We've never seen anyone run close to 1:58, and if this guy has 2:02-talent, shouldn't there be a bunch of 2:03 or 2:04-talent guys, some of whom will dope and run 1:59-2:00? Since this doesn't happen, the 2:02 guy must be doping. In other words, the performance level alone is suspicious.

Needless to say, this is an absolutely toxic argument for trust in the sport. It's why (in my opinion) most sports pretend doping doesn't exist. It's why one runner testing positive casts a shadow over everyone else.

But the contrapositive is true too: if we can prove that the 2:02 runner is clean, then one of my assumptions above is wrong. Maybe doping doesn't help 4 minutes. Maybe there are lots of guys with 2:03 talent, but they don't run 1:59 because they're actually clean. Maybe neither of those things are true, but the 2:02 guy is able to get to the top of the sport off transcendent talent and hard work anyway. Any of these explanations would highly encouraging!

Now, taking a bunch of extra tests certainly can't prove that Sebastian Sawe is clean, nothing can do that for certain. But why would a doper want to sign up for all that, even if they're confident they can beat the tests, it just adds an extra hurdle, and the prize money is the same either way. No one was clamoring for this, few other athletes do anything like it, and we celebrate them just fine. It doesn't even have *that* much upside for Sawe; now every time his name comes up we start talking about doping.

So I do think that Sawe's testing regimen has to count as good evidence that he might be clean (although far from certain). And like I said above, the sport rises and falls as one. If Sawe is clean then it is possible to run 2:02 clean, and so other top marathoners might be clean. If top marathoners can be clean, the same goes for champions of all events.

I don't know how many people actually believe that "everyone is doping"; it certainly seems to be believed by a lot of forum posters. And I do think that (while not dispositive!) Sawe's project casts a blow against that very depressing worldview.

eagleeye wrote:

The main thing this whole Sawe discussion has made me realize is just how expensive it would be to effectively clean up the sport (and be confident about it). These lines from Mr. Gault's (fantastic as usual) piece especially stuck out to me:

"Clothier noted that the AIU tested Chepngetich 15 times out of competition in 2024. Yet she was still able to pass every one and set a world record of 2:09:56 in Chicago."

If we need to test athletes 25-30 times in a year to have a relatively high confidence that they are clean (and testing frequency is not the only thing that matters), we're completely f***ed.

A punishment of 2-4 years away from competition isn't severe enough to disincentivize. A confirmed doping instance (100% positive, not just a missed test) should be met with a lifetime ban from competition, a monetary fine equivalent to all prize money earned, and a heck of a lot more shame than we currently give out. Don't underestimate shame. If you cheat the sport and get caught, you should be made to feel bad about that decision for at least as long as until you're out of competition age.

automorphic wrote:

This wasn't the primary point of the thread, so I didn't spend all that much time on it in the OP, but I do think some of the more conspiratorial posters are refusing what is obvious after a moment's thought: Sawe submitting himself to extra testing really *is* evidence in the direction of his being clean. (Evidence, not proof!)

We've seen that testing really can catch dopers. Not all of them, not on every test, but dopers get regularly caught, including big names, enough that if you're doping, exposing yourself to a bunch of extra tests is a pretty reckless thing to do. If nothing else, you have to be that much more careful timing the dosages, that little bit more restrained while peaking for a major race. And if you think Sawe is doping with some new drug that can 100% beat the tests, why didn't Chepngetich take that drug? Why haven't all the recent Kenyan drug busts taken it? Why wouldn't a doper want to take that drug AND a little EPO, which will definitely show up on the AIU tests? Why choose the AIU in the first place, given that they have the reputation of being less corruptable than other testing agencies? And just because a drug may currently be undetectable doesn't mean there won't be a test in the future. Just why sign up for the hassle and risk when you don't need to?

And I'll just reiterate that Sawe barely seems to even benefit from all this increased testing. It doesn't seem to be tied to big contract bonuses or sponsor opportunities. Other, bigger names have eschewed this sort of scrutiny, so it's not like it's required or anything. The general public won't ever care, and even if they do hear about it, they'll just remember "Sawe, something something, doping".

I think in other areas, this line of reasoning would be obvious. Maybe the mafia are cheating on their taxes, maybe they know they can get away with it. Doesn't mean they'll voluntarily sign up for extra audits with potentially hostile IRS agents, that's just pointless. Maybe the student cheating on their exam is so slick they could sit in the front row and get away with it, but will they? Or will they sit towards the back where their cheating is easier and less risky? Etc. etc.

Look, we can never have proof that any runner is clean. I and others have claimed that this is evidence, not proof. But for those of you who will never believe an elite runner is clean, you're positing an extra level of narcissistic sociopathy for Sawe to willingly sign up for this and yet dope. Unfortunately, these traits aren't alien to elite sport. But the question remains: it the hypothetical scenario where Sawe is doping, why did he sign up for this? What would he even gain from the exercise other than a cartoon-villain-like satisfaction from foiling the heroes.