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.
Fantastic post. A lot of these posters consistently cite Occams Razor or other arguments. Then when presented with an athlete earmarking $50,000 annually to an organization that have proven highly effective at catching Kenyan road racers, it’s part of some vast virtue-signaling effort that makes almost no logical sense
Yes Sawe/adidas have something to gain from this initiative but IF he is doping I agree this is an insanely risky move with minimal payoff. The same people who think Kipchoge and Kiptum are guilty as hell will believe Sawe is no matter what he does. Kipchoge is a massive figure despite doubts around him. Sawe could be too, and he doesn’t need this at all to get there. But it’s clear he wants convert as many of the skeptics as possible in a way that few athletes do.
If you know you won't test positive (like Marion Jones knew a quarter of a century ago with "the clear") you have nothing to lose by inviting further tests. But it is a useful pr move when you know to be Kenyan now is to be automatically labelled a doper. Tests didn't catch every doped Russian athlete either. This is a doped sport.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
Fantastic post. A lot of these posters consistently cite Occams Razor or other arguments. Then when presented with an athlete earmarking $50,000 annually to an organization that have proven highly effective at catching Kenyan road racers, it’s part of some vast virtue-signaling effort that makes almost no logical sense
Yes Sawe/adidas have something to gain from this initiative but IF he is doping I agree this is an insanely risky move with minimal payoff. The same people who think Kipchoge and Kiptum are guilty as hell will believe Sawe is no matter what he does. Kipchoge is a massive figure despite doubts around him. Sawe could be too, and he doesn’t need this at all to get there. But it’s clear he wants convert as many of the skeptics as possible in a way that few athletes do.
If you know you won't test positive (like Marion Jones knew a quarter of a century ago with "the clear") you have nothing to lose by inviting further tests. But it is a useful pr move when you know to be Kenyan now is to be automatically labelled a doper. Tests didn't catch every doped Russian athlete either. This is a doped sport.
So there is no regimen of testing that will persuade you that even one single athlete is clean? Why test anyone at all then?
This is a Kenyan, the most doped country in the world. Coached by Berardelli. Practically a wildfire. Additional “testing” is just another cover for someone that knows they won’t be caught.
Believing Kenyan runners are clean is like believing in Santa.
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.
This is the cruel reality, yet the usual virtue-signaling fraudsters tie themselves in knots to defend the smiling cheats from the highlands of East Africa. Hundreds of Kenyas have been suspended for doping in recent times. Kenyans cheat, and will cheat any way they can for many reasons. That Sawe chooses to stay with a coach with such a track record tells everyone what’s going on. And it isn’t good.
If you know you won't test positive (like Marion Jones knew a quarter of a century ago with "the clear") you have nothing to lose by inviting further tests. But it is a useful pr move when you know to be Kenyan now is to be automatically labelled a doper. Tests didn't catch every doped Russian athlete either. This is a doped sport.
You realize that Marion Jones did in fact skip a test resulting in a lengthy suspension and had an A sample come back positive for EPO. I can assure you welcoming more testing was not on her mind no matter what sort of argument you try to conjure. Even the act of having drug testers around is a dangerous move. If they see paraphernalia, you don’t think they can act?
If you know you won't test positive (like Marion Jones knew a quarter of a century ago with "the clear") you have nothing to lose by inviting further tests. But it is a useful pr move when you know to be Kenyan now is to be automatically labelled a doper. Tests didn't catch every doped Russian athlete either. This is a doped sport.
So there is no regimen of testing that will persuade you that even one single athlete is clean? Why test anyone at all then?
Since only 1% of tests return a positive and yet it is known that the number of dopers greatly exceeds that we can't rely on tests to prove an athlete is clean. All we can say is they haven't failed a test. Most dopers don't.
Testing is largely window dressing, to convince fans that sport is mostly clean. It also is intended to prevent wholesale unrestrained doping. It may do that. But as antidoping experts have long ago admitted, "testing only catches the dumb and the careless". Doping remains ahead of antidoping and as the former head of WADA, David Howman, has recently said, dopers aren't being caught.
If you know you won't test positive (like Marion Jones knew a quarter of a century ago with "the clear") you have nothing to lose by inviting further tests. But it is a useful pr move when you know to be Kenyan now is to be automatically labelled a doper. Tests didn't catch every doped Russian athlete either. This is a doped sport.
You realize that Marion Jones did in fact skip a test resulting in a lengthy suspension and had an A sample come back positive for EPO. I can assure you welcoming more testing was not on her mind no matter what sort of argument you try to conjure. Even the act of having drug testers around is a dangerous move. If they see paraphernalia, you don’t think they can act?
She regularly passed tests in which she said she was "glowing". The same applies to some of her contemporaries like Barry Bonds. She (and Bonds, Roger Clemens and others) never incurred a doping violation through testing. They were identified as dopers because they were found on Balco's client list.
What you also don't realize is that this was a quarter of a century ago. Doping is much more sophisticated today than it ever was. The former head of WADA, David Howman, says it was very disturbing to see that athletes could dope and it wouldn't be revealed in tests. He has consistently since maintained that doping is always ahead of antidoping - they are playing catch up. But it is even more telling about the state of sport today that he has recently warned that dopers are still getting away with it and it is discrediting the drive for clean sport.
One thing to keep in mind about all this is one way to control when you're tested, is to get very involved with the testing itself. Meaning, you're in contact with the testing authorities constantly, appearing completely forthcoming and wiling to be tested whenever/wherever. But that congenial relationship gives you much more control over the process when YOU need a favor. Lance was a genius at this, and it eventually gave him almost total control over the testers.
So there is no regimen of testing that will persuade you that even one single athlete is clean? Why test anyone at all then?
Since only 1% of tests return a positive and yet it is known that the number of dopers greatly exceeds that we can't rely on tests to prove an athlete is clean. All we can say is they haven't failed a test. Most dopers don't.
Testing is largely window dressing, to convince fans that sport is mostly clean. It also is intended to prevent wholesale unrestrained doping. It may do that. But as antidoping experts have long ago admitted, "testing only catches the dumb and the careless". Doping remains ahead of antidoping and as the former head of WADA, David Howman, has recently said, dopers aren't being caught.
I want to drill down on this, since you've been posting this cynical take on doping for a long time. There are certainly convincing parts to it. One part is the argument I put into my original post, which is essentially that dopers will beat non-dopers, so the winner of the race must be doping.
But there's something that really, truly doesn't make sense about this take. I'm talking about the idea that "all top runners are doping", not the more moderate position that "some top runners are doping; testing catches many of them but others get away". I think these are very different positions, as was somewhat explained in my OP.
If all or nearly all top runners are doping, where's the evidence? It's one thing for individual runners/coaches/agents to obtain performance enhancing drugs, but yet another for the whole sport to be able to do it. This would mean that every top runner, coach, agent etc. would have direct, personal knowledge of doping. Probably some of their family members, friends, roommates, therapists, etc. also know about this. Every young talented highly runner would eventually learn about the reality that it was impossible to win medals without doping. Some would insist on staying clean, but be bitter about it. Others would succumb to the temptation but be ashamed or regretful.
So given all that, if doping is an prevalent as you think, why don't we hear more about it? These forums are anonymous; why aren't there weekly posts with titles like "my coach told me to start taking PEDs" or "I have a grudge against this person so here is concrete evidence that they have doped" or "I'm a professional runner and have been doping my whole career". Why aren't there more Jose Cansecos or Floyd Landises? You can't convince me that a tell-all book about Olympians doping wouldn't sell copies. Why do former athletes who are desperate for money sometimes sell their Olympic medals, but never write a book about their PED use? Even an "If I did it" sort of thing.
Now in some sports people don't really talk about doping, but that's not true in running. We know the pros, former pros, coaches etc. frequent these forums. They can't fail to see the large number of doping threads. And you're telling me they basically never jump in to say "yeah, he's totally dirty, his coach got drunk once and admitted it to me".
Like all of my posts in this thread, I'm not trying to say that doping is nonexistent or that any particular runner must be clean. I really don't know. If anyone is an elite athlete or coach with direct knowledge of doping, I'd encourage posting about it.
What do you mean about not hear about it? 280 Kenyans have been banned in the last 8 years. We hear about it all the time. Sometimes there is a thread every week.
Sorry if I don’t believe a 2:02 marathoner from Kenya is clean. Even if he has a nice PR campaign around testing.
Not sure what you want. Even the IAAF had to admit that at least 30% doped in the 12 months proceeding the 2011 World Championship. Faiss et al. showed 15-18% in-competition blood doping at the 2011 and 2013 World Championship. That is a) just blood doping, and b) only the boldest of the bold who doped directly at Worlds.
Almost six-year wrangle delays release of anonymous surveys done after elite athletics events in 2011, in which 57% of competitors doing admitted doping compared to under 4% in Wada results
In elite sport, the Athlete Biological Passport (ABP) was invented to tackle cheaters by monitoring closely changes in biological parameters, flagging atypic...
That includes the also-rans who never made it into the finals. Since, as you said, (equally talented) dopers will beat non-dopers, a lot more dopers than 30% will make it into the finals.
Example using the 30%: 46 athletes at Worlds over e.g. 1500 m -> 13 dopers. Typically 12 finalists, 3 medalists, 1 winner. Safe money is on dopers as medal winners, each and every time.
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.
First disclosure - I don't believe "everyone is doping".
Second disclosure - Do I believe doping is still prevalent in track and field as it sadly is in every professional sport? Yes.
Is this Sawe situation (and good for him, seriously) showing the sport is cleaner than we thought? No, no it's not.
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.
Not sure what you want. Even the IAAF had to admit that at least 30% doped in the 12 months proceeding the 2011 World Championship. Faiss et al. showed 15-18% in-competition blood doping at the 2011 and 2013 World Championship. That is a) just blood doping, and b) only the boldest of the bold who doped directly at Worlds.
That includes the also-rans who never made it into the finals. Since, as you said, (equally talented) dopers will beat non-dopers, a lot more dopers than 30% will make it into the finals.
Example using the 30%: 46 athletes at Worlds over e.g. 1500 m -> 13 dopers. Typically 12 finalists, 3 medalists, 1 winner. Safe money is on dopers as medal winners, each and every time.
The 30 per cent figure is about right, however an athlete who is not part of the Registered Testing Pool and thus is not subject to regular doping controls is more likely to be going outside the rules than a top ranked athlete in a major final who’s been in the testing pool for an extended period of time. A quick search can yield all the athletes from India who never had a chance to qualify for a major final, who then failed a doping test once they were obliged to take one.
Despite what the inexperienced here would have you believe, it takes some effort to evade modern anti doping controls over an extended period of time.
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:
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.
First disclosure - I don't believe "everyone is doping".
Second disclosure - Do I believe doping is still prevalent in track and field as it sadly is in every professional sport? Yes.
Is this Sawe situation (and good for him, seriously) showing the sport is cleaner than we thought? No, no it's not.
Then we agree! (With the possible exception of your last point)
To clarify, nothing I am saying is supposed to suggest that doping isn't prevalent in track and field. That would be absurd with all the recent busts.
I am arguing specifically against the view that the whole sport is dirty, that by virtue of being on the start line at the Olympics or (the front of) a major marathon you're highly likely to be doping, independent of all other factors. This may be true for some sports, at some times, but I do not think it applies to track and field at the present moment.
This may seem like an overly pedantic point, but it's the difference between supporting well-funded testing, strict penalties, etc. versus just writing off the whole sport as irredeemable.
First disclosure - I don't believe "everyone is doping".
Second disclosure - Do I believe doping is still prevalent in track and field as it sadly is in every professional sport? Yes.
Is this Sawe situation (and good for him, seriously) showing the sport is cleaner than we thought? No, no it's not.
Then we agree! (With the possible exception of your last point)
To clarify, nothing I am saying is supposed to suggest that doping isn't prevalent in track and field. That would be absurd with all the recent busts.
I am arguing specifically against the view that the whole sport is dirty, that by virtue of being on the start line at the Olympics or (the front of) a major marathon you're highly likely to be doping, independent of all other factors. This may be true for some sports, at some times, but I do not think it applies to track and field at the present moment.
This may seem like an overly pedantic point, but it's the difference between supporting well-funded testing, strict penalties, etc. versus just writing off the whole sport as irredeemable.
You are constructing a straw man to argue against. No one credibly argues the WHOLE sport is doping. To know that to be true would mean we would always know who is doping. We don't. That is because many, if not most, dopers aren't caught. We know this because the numbers caught - 1% of tests are positive - are but a fraction of those reliably estimated to be doping. Confidential surveys indicate it could be from 1 in 3 to more than 1 in 2 championship level athletes. Hence, doping can be reliably claimed to be prevalent in the sport. This is reinforced by Howman's statement earlier this year that dopers are "getting away with it" and it is undermining the message of clean sport.
If we then take the view that 1 in 3 or 1 in 2 top level athletes are doping but not being caught that means we can't be confident that ANY top athlete isn't doping.
If you accept also that athletes are doping to gain a performance advantage then it also stands to reason that doped athletes will be beating non-doped athletes of a similar level of ability. We see also from confirmed violations that these doped athletes include some at the very peak of the sport - like Chepnegetich, Jeptoo, Kiprop, Ramzi, Katir and of course Houlihan. It therefore becomes hard to argue that the best won't be doping if they are beating dopers of a similar ability.
It isn't necessary to argue that everyone is doping to conclude that there may be a 50% likelihood that any top athlete will be. That is not a sport that can be trusted.
This post was edited 56 seconds after it was posted.
One thing to keep in mind about all this is one way to control when you're tested, is to get very involved with the testing itself. Meaning, you're in contact with the testing authorities constantly, appearing completely forthcoming and wiling to be tested whenever/wherever. But that congenial relationship gives you much more control over the process when YOU need a favor. Lance was a genius at this, and it eventually gave him almost total control over the testers.
Again this is the tinfoil stuff. You can suggest AIU is in on some conspiracy, but now you’re threading the needle with Sawe operating in some quid pro quo scheme? All when he didn’t need to sign up for a voluntary testing regimen at all. This makes no sense.
One thing to keep in mind about all this is one way to control when you're tested, is to get very involved with the testing itself. Meaning, you're in contact with the testing authorities constantly, appearing completely forthcoming and wiling to be tested whenever/wherever. But that congenial relationship gives you much more control over the process when YOU need a favor. Lance was a genius at this, and it eventually gave him almost total control over the testers.
Again this is the tinfoil stuff. You can suggest AIU is in on some conspiracy, but now you’re threading the needle with Sawe operating in some quid pro quo scheme? All when he didn’t need to sign up for a voluntary testing regimen at all. This makes no sense.
It’s theater for the masses. Berardelli + Sawe = doping. Fini.
