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

automorphic · 2026-04-15T12:45:13-04:00

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:[quote] 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. [/quote] 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.

Pro News/Info/Results Marathons

Reply New New Thread

Moderation Moderation Information Moderation Information & Rules

Page 26 of 28

1 25 26 27 28

Next Last

2 days ago 06/01/2026 9:36am EDT

re: Detective P

Detective P wrote:
Back to the subject of Sawe: if he was doping, then how the hell did he pass all those extra tests? I don't trust his coach, but it's very hard to pull that off.
The only thing I can think of is a bit far-fetched: coordination with Kenya's airports and cell phone companies to know the locations of the AIU testers. Maybe molidustat could be microdosed most evenings in simulated high-altitude. The molidustat would reduce the time required, and the high-altitude chamber could be shown to the AIU to explain away issues with the biological passport. It would be interesting to see detection time for pegmolesatide, but I can't access the paper.
EPO is too detectable now with the updates. Same with anabolics unless there's something new like "the clear" used by BALCO years ago.

Since only 1% of tests return a positive and yet the incidence of doping is estimated to be even higher than 50% amongst elites and pros your question answers itself. Athletes have long known how to beat the testers. That is what Howman reiterated only this year when he said antidoping is "ineffective".

This post was edited 14 minutes after it was posted.

2 days ago 06/01/2026 9:50am EDT

re: rekrunner

rekrunner wrote:
qwertzy wrote:
Well, the shoe studies are even worse. Almost always no check for placebo, no racing, often done on hobby joggers and sometimes not even corrected for the different weights of the shoes. And like the doping studies, with only very few participants who show lots of variations in their improvements.
... and more to the point, we still cannot make any quantitive comparison of drugs versus shoes, with anything less than two quantities.

If shoes were shown to offer as great or even better advantage than drugs then the shoes would similarly be banned for offering an unfair advantage. To legalize footwear "doping" would make a mockery of half a century of doping control. But the strongest argument that drugs provide greater gains is the fact that doping remains unabated in the era of supershoes. Athletes aren't giving up drugs because of the shoes. Howman concedes doping control is "ineffective" and dopers are "getting away with it". If the shoes were better than EPO (or any other drug) the drug would have disappeared from use.

2 days ago 06/01/2026 10:21am EDT

re: Armstronglivs

Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
... and more to the point, we still cannot make any quantitive comparison of drugs versus shoes, with anything less than two quantities.
If shoes were shown to offer as great or even better advantage than drugs then the shoes would similarly be banned for offering an unfair advantage. To legalize footwear "doping" would make a mockery of half a century of doping control. But the strongest argument that drugs provide greater gains is the fact that doping remains unabated in the era of supershoes. Athletes aren't giving up drugs because of the shoes. Howman concedes doping control is "ineffective" and dopers are "getting away with it". If the shoes were better than EPO (or any other drug) the drug would have disappeared from use.

Quite obviously shoes and drugs offer a performance gain. Shoes do not cause bodily harm and are available to all. Banned drugs are banned because they cause harm.

LA said nobody can win the TdF without drugs. He was even doping well before he was exclusively a bike racer. It's about ego and money. There are athletes that doubt they can win without doping and still don't dope. There are "athletes " that dope just to win a Strava segment.

2 days ago 06/01/2026 10:37am EDT

re: Lloyd Flandiss

Lloyd Flandiss wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
If shoes were shown to offer as great or even better advantage than drugs then the shoes would similarly be banned for offering an unfair advantage. To legalize footwear "doping" would make a mockery of half a century of doping control. But the strongest argument that drugs provide greater gains is the fact that doping remains unabated in the era of supershoes. Athletes aren't giving up drugs because of the shoes. Howman concedes doping control is "ineffective" and dopers are "getting away with it". If the shoes were better than EPO (or any other drug) the drug would have disappeared from use.
Quite obviously shoes and drugs offer a performance gain. Shoes do not cause bodily harm and are available to all. Banned drugs are banned because they cause harm.
LA said nobody can win the TdF without drugs. He was even doping well before he was exclusively a bike racer. It's about ego and money. There are athletes that doubt they can win without doping and still don't dope. There are "athletes " that dope just to win a Strava segment.

Drugs aren't banned because they cause harm. Not all do. Some may cause harm. Misuse or lack of expert knowledge in using them could cause harm. But the main reason for antidoping banning drugs is to prevent "unfair advantage". If most dopers fell ill or expired because of their using drugs the rationale for their doping would be lost. Athletes dope to win; not get sick or die.

The argument for saying shoes arent banned because they are available to all is the same as allowing drugs to be available to all. That is the Enhanced Games. Taken with medical advice - as most dopers do now - the drugs don't harm. If one brand of shoe offers a significant advantage that others don't that is essentially the same as taking a ped - it is equipment "doping".

Doping is found in all sports now because competitors are looking for an advantage. In many sports it is known you can't get to the top without it. To be a pro now is to dope.

This post was edited 36 seconds after it was posted.

2 days ago 06/01/2026 10:53am EDT

re: Armstronglivs

Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
... and more to the point, we still cannot make any quantitive comparison of drugs versus shoes, with anything less than two quantities.
If shoes were shown to offer as great or even better advantage than drugs then the shoes would similarly be banned for offering an unfair advantage. To legalize footwear "doping" would make a mockery of half a century of doping control. But the strongest argument that drugs provide greater gains is the fact that doping remains unabated in the era of supershoes. Athletes aren't giving up drugs because of the shoes. Howman concedes doping control is "ineffective" and dopers are "getting away with it". If the shoes were better than EPO (or any other drug) the drug would have disappeared from use.

What an unbelievable nonsense.

Better shoes enable you to run faster - doped or not doped.

2 days ago 06/01/2026 10:57am EDT

re: dumbstrong

dumbstrong wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
If shoes were shown to offer as great or even better advantage than drugs then the shoes would similarly be banned for offering an unfair advantage. To legalize footwear "doping" would make a mockery of half a century of doping control. But the strongest argument that drugs provide greater gains is the fact that doping remains unabated in the era of supershoes. Athletes aren't giving up drugs because of the shoes. Howman concedes doping control is "ineffective" and dopers are "getting away with it". If the shoes were better than EPO (or any other drug) the drug would have disappeared from use.
What an unbelievable nonsense.
Better shoes enable you to run faster - doped or not doped.

But not faster than drugs, or athletes wouldn't be still doping.

2 days ago 06/02/2026 12:18am EDT

re: Armstronglivs

The moderation of these threads on doping is farcical. This site claims to allow discussion of doping but removes any post that a moderator doesn't like or agree with - which includes criticizing the specious and unrelenting propaganda of doping denial that is posted on these threads. One can say nothing that reflects on the credibility of its chief proponent on this subject. He is protected by the mods for the obvious reason they agree with his doping denial views. Even quoting a figure of the standing in the sport as Sage Canaday on this results in the post being removed.

2 days ago 06/02/2026 12:38am EDT

re: Armstronglivs

Can we stop making these BS posts, please? Calling athletes out as doping does not solve the potential issue nor positively effect your life whatsoever. Who even cares? Old people like you just like to call successful people out from the jealousy of not having accomplished anything in their life. We should congratulate these runners for their performance, not focus on what kind of drugs they take or whatever. So please, shut up.

2 days ago 06/02/2026 12:41am EDT

re: Armstronglivs

Armstronglivs wrote:
The moderation of these threads on doping is farcical. This site claims to allow discussion of doping but removes any post that a moderator doesn't like or agree with - which includes criticizing the specious and unrelenting propaganda of doping denial that is posted on these threads. One can say nothing that reflects on the credibility of its chief proponent on this subject. He is protected by the mods for the obvious reason they agree with his doping denial views. Even quoting a figure of the standing in the sport as Sage Canaday on this results in the post being removed.

Because the attitude of calling people out for doping is ridiculous. Why not congratulate people for their performance instead of calling them out? Let's face it: Sawe's marathon was extremely impressive regardless of whether he was doping or not. Either be positive or quit wasting your time spamming stupid posts like these.

2 days ago 06/02/2026 2:34am EDT

re: vvv

The implications are huge: it contributes to a dishonest society that extends to other areas of life: cheating in relationships, insider trading, mega churches, etc. I don't mind if they legalize doping or say "we can't enforce the rules," but the illusion of clean sports is damaging to society.

2 days ago 06/02/2026 2:42am EDT

re: Armstronglivs

LetsRun allows lots of discussion of doping and criticism of your dear friend Rekrunner. They have have even asked interview questions to elite runners that has upset some people.

2 days ago 06/02/2026 3:10am EDT

re: qwertzy

qwertzy wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
That's also not so true. The doping/performance studies I've seen are notably worse than the shoe studies.
I have seen shoe studies looking for placebo effects, shoe studies looking at sub-2:08 marathoners, and many studies comparing AFT shoes against non-AFT shoes.
That ignores "almost always", "often", "no racing", "sometimes not even corrected for the different weights of the shoes", and "with only very few participants who show lots of variations in their improvements." So your "not so true" is pushing it, and you gave no examples...

You gave no examples either, despite concluding "the shoe studies are even worse".

2 days ago 06/02/2026 3:15am EDT

re: rekrunner

rekrunner wrote:
qwertzy wrote:
Well, the shoe studies are even worse. Almost always no check for placebo, no racing, often done on hobby joggers and sometimes not even corrected for the different weights of the shoes. And like the doping studies, with only very few participants who show lots of variations in their improvements.
... and more to the point, we still cannot make any quantitive comparison of drugs versus shoes, with anything less than two quantities.

Shoe studies, and the impact of shoes, are actually easy measurements because you do not require comparison of race times to get the theoretical effect of the shoes. It is simple physics and there are parameters you can actually measure in a lab.

Then of course, those parameters won't won't affect every runner in the same way. They have different footstrike, running form etc. The ones that are already as effiecient as possible most likely get a lower effect, but the effect can be measured.

With drugs, you cannot measure (in a lab) what the physical outcome would be for the ingestion of a certain amount

2 days ago 06/02/2026 3:19am EDT

re: dumbstrong

dumbstrong wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
If shoes were shown to offer as great or even better advantage than drugs then the shoes would similarly be banned for offering an unfair advantage. To legalize footwear "doping" would make a mockery of half a century of doping control. But the strongest argument that drugs provide greater gains is the fact that doping remains unabated in the era of supershoes. Athletes aren't giving up drugs because of the shoes. Howman concedes doping control is "ineffective" and dopers are "getting away with it". If the shoes were better than EPO (or any other drug) the drug would have disappeared from use.
What an unbelievable nonsense.
Better shoes enable you to run faster - doped or not doped.

Most shoes allow you to run faster than barefeet ,,,the barefoot running craze died ages ago.

In my opinion, the reason shoes should not be banned is that they do not provide an external energy source. They don't. They simply allow less energy loss at each footstrike.

Maybe Armstrong belives that there is a motor that flicks the carbon plate at each strike

2 days ago 06/02/2026 3:21am EDT

re: Armstronglivs

Armstronglivs wrote:
The moderation of these threads on doping is farcical. This site claims to allow discussion of doping but removes any post that a moderator doesn't like or agree with - which includes criticizing the specious and unrelenting propaganda of doping denial that is posted on these threads. One can say nothing that reflects on the credibility of its chief proponent on this subject. He is protected by the mods for the obvious reason they agree with his doping denial views. Even quoting a figure of the standing in the sport as Sage Canaday on this results in the post being removed.

You can be glad they allow posts because you repeatedly misunderstand (or misrepresent) the way shoes affect running energy in order to make your points about drugs.

2 days ago 06/02/2026 3:23am EDT

re: Armstronglivs

Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Not really, once you scratch the surface.
You have claimed the shoes wouldn't have offered El G more than a second improvement on his 1500/mile time. No one who understands what drugs do suggests EPO doesn't give more than a second improvement over that distance. Ramzi gained nearly 10 seconds over the 1500 and Katir dropped from 3:36 to 3:28 in a year. That has what drugs can do. Not shoes.

My claim for El G was maybe 1-2 seconds.

Your imagination of suggested improvements come from those who don't know elite performance.

Ramzi changed his coaching and training.

Katir committed whereabouts failures.

2 days ago 06/02/2026 3:32am EDT

re: Armstronglivs

Armstronglivs wrote:
If shoes were shown to offer as great or even better advantage than drugs then the shoes would similarly be banned for offering an unfair advantage. To legalize footwear "doping" would make a mockery of half a century of doping control. But the strongest argument that drugs provide greater gains is the fact that doping remains unabated in the era of supershoes. Athletes aren't giving up drugs because of the shoes. Howman concedes doping control is "ineffective" and dopers are "getting away with it". If the shoes were better than EPO (or any other drug) the drug would have disappeared from use.

The shoes would not be banned, as the advantage would not be considered unfair, nor harmful to health, and it would not make a mockery of a half a century of doping control.

Your strongest argument is weak, relying on your imagination. Drugs will never disappear as long as people imagine they will help.

Page 26 of 28

1 25 26 27 28

Next Last

What People Are Talking About On LetsRun

No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.

Reply Replying to

Username

Password

Leave the password field blank to post anonymously.

Post Preview

By posting you acknowledge that you have read and abide by our Terms and Conditions.

Remember me on this device.

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

This thread has already been deleted.

You have been subscribed.

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

Jump To A Page

Follow Armstronglivs

Block Armstronglivs

Follow Armstronglivs

Block Armstronglivs

Follow Armstronglivs

Block Armstronglivs

Follow Armstronglivs

Block Armstronglivs

Follow Armstronglivs

Block Armstronglivs

Follow vvv

Block vvv

Follow vvv

Block vvv

Follow Detective P

Block Detective P

Follow Detective P

Block Detective P

Follow rekrunner

Block rekrunner

Follow I am Sam

Block I am Sam

Follow I am Sam

Block I am Sam

Follow I am Sam

Block I am Sam

Follow rekrunner

Block rekrunner

Follow rekrunner

Block rekrunner

Jump To A Page

This thread has already been deleted.

Reply Replying to

You have been subscribed.