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

Only 1% of tests return a positive, yet reliable estimates from athletes' surveys among other data indicate doping far exceeds that. So to you that makes antidoping "partially effective". That most dopers aren't caught is not partially effective; it is barely effective. Or in Howman's plain terms - "ineffective". For good reason he doesn't say "partially effective".

The overwhelming evidence of advantage is that the practice is decades old and is throughout the sport - and indeed all sports. The individual gain that athletes make doesn't have to be measured to enable a conclusion that no practice would be so longstanding and so widespread without a rational basis, which is that it enables an advantage. Nor would sports be focused on eradicating doping unless it was against the principle of fair competition. Athletes would not risk their health - if health concerns are part of the picture - if they gained nothing from their doping.

I do not "admit" to anything. "Ineffective" does NOT mean "partially effective". Catching only "the dumb and the careless" - as antidoping has said - while most get away with it is not a partial success story. It is failure.

So is that a "yes" or a "no"? Because earlier, you quoted him as saying "not effective enough" and then reminded us that that is what he said. You are the one who then suggested that means anti-doping is "partially effective". Howman didn't say that -- you did.

Who said "estimates from athletes' surveys" were "reliable estimates"? The survey researchers themselves gave us plenty of reasons to doubt the reliability.

Who said *most* dopers aren't caught? Howman never said that.

In fact, as late as October 2025, Howman said "the evidence base for doping prevalence in competitive sport is still weak and fragmented with most evidence pointing to a prevalence rate of 0 to 5% overall".

Of course you cannot "admit" you were wrong, either then or now (or both), but your words speak for themselves.

You contradict yourself just in the simple exercise of recollecting the plainly written historical facts.

As a matter of plain English, catching "the dumb and the careless" is both "partially effective" and "a partial success story".

It does not mean "partially effective" or he would have used those words. Nothing he says offers encouragement that antidoping is succeeding. He is saying the reverse.

That estimates from athlete surveys are that those doping at championship level are between 1 in 3 and higher than 1 in 2 athletes. That does not make the surveys "unreliable". The truth is "unreliable" to one such as you.

Howman knows that the numbers doping far exceeds the numbers caught. He has said that. That is why he admits antidoping is always behind doping. If you were actually informed on this subject rather than trapped in your fantasies you would know this.

I do not concede anything of the kind. It is only your misrepresentation that leads to your false conclusion about what I said. An antidoping system that is failing is not "partially" successful and a system in which it is expertly estimated that more athletes dope than are caught is failing. "Ineffective" - in plain English, which is alien to you - does not mean "partially successful". Just as your arguments are ineffective they do not partially succeed.

So your answer is "yes" and "no".

Note "partially effective" were your words, as you explained what Howman's words suggest. If you suggest now that that is not what he meant, why did you suggest it earlier, and why are you contradicting yourself now?

Regarding surveys, the most important questions are what would make these surveys reliable, and who has said so, and on what bases?

Howman did not say "far exceeds" -- again, those are your words.

Howman has no way of knowing whether anti-doping catches 5% or 50% of "elite" dopers. But he does think that anti-doping can do better than the WADA Code requires today.

Of course you won't concede anything. That would take integrity and humility.

But when you say "yes" only later to say "no", one of them must be wrong.

You are the one who suggested anti-doping was "partially effective", after you told us that Howman said "not effective enough". That is not my argument, but rather one of your rare arguments I agreed with, even if you fail now to understand the logic of what you successfully argued.

Whether you find your own arguments ineffective now is quite puzzling but understandable.

I have had this situation several times with Armstrong.

He's from Kenya.

He's doping. Massively.

This is not "overwhelming" evidence of advantage, but would be evidence of use. In any case, recall Howman said just last year, "the evidence base for doping prevalence in competitive sport is still weak and fragmented with most evidence pointing to a prevalence rate of 0 to 5% overall". There is no "overwhelming" evidence of use.

Recall the context is not "advantage", (or "helps" as "marinia" said), but "If it gives so much of an advantage", and more specifically for this thread, in the men's elite marathon. The individual gain would have to be measured, or reliably estimated, to suggest that the advantage is "so much".

I'll say it again. You are letting yourself be fooled, and fooling yourself, with such contorted logic lacking evidence.

Don't make the mistake of thinking only the top 1% of professional runners dope. Runners at all levels, even the school level probably dope. To get a scholarship. To get an NIL. To get a shoe contract. To get appearance money (guaranteed money). (Prize money (non-guaranteed money) is for chumps.) Mo Farah was very likely doping with NOP. Why would he take that chance? Because through doping he won 10 gold medals, became wealthy and became a national hero. People who dope mainly think about the upside. They of course are aware of the downside -- positive tests, bans, being ostracized from the sport. But they are willing to take that chance.

The thing to consider is Adidas has a financial interest in Sawe being clean. Imagine the embarrassment if he was the first man to run sub-2 hours in marathon race, then promptly tested positive. All the massive brand awareness created by his sub-2 would be ruined. It's very suspicious at most and a conflict of interest at least for Adidas to be paying for all the additional testing.

Adidas and Sawe are making a huge gamble, considering the non-zero risk of unintentional and unknowing doping and false positive. One wrong steak, or contaminated medication, or illness or wrong interpretation of results, and this exercise will only serve to further cement the belief that such performances are only made possible through banned substances and methods.

Maybe you don't go far enough. Maybe the top 1% are doping far less as they were already winning without resorting to doping, and would be less motivated to take the risk. It would be their competitors who are losing who are more motivated to supplement their training with banned substances and methods.

I don't find it so likely that SlowMo doped. He was fortunate to rise to prominence at a time when his potential competitors decided to skip the track as more money could be made on the roads.

I'll try to simplify for you. "Ineffective" does not mean "partially effective". It isn't qualified success; it is failure.

For you, if only one in 50 or more doped athletes is caught that means the system is "partially" effective - because at least someone is caught even if most aren't. But by any rational basis, if far fewer dopers are caught than those who get away with it - which is what Howman is saying, that intentional dopers are "getting away with it" - then the system is ineffective. It is not succeeding; it is failing. He has always acknowledged it, because he says doping is ahead of antidoping and there are many more athletes who get away with it than are being caught. If it were not so it could not be claimed that doping is prevalent in the sport. It is.