Update on 12/30/2025 - This thread was started in 2023. I've updated it to reflect the fact that non-African born men swept all 4 track distance golds at 2025 Worlds.
So after going 0-64, non African born men won the last 2 in 2022, 2 of 4 in 2023 and 4 of 4 in 2025.
It's rather misleading to use the term PED. In one case, the WR holder was busted for a diuretic, not generally considered a PED. In another case, the former WR holder was provisionally suspended for evasion, again, not a PED. I couldn't find the third WR holder you referred to. Furthermore, these were road WR holders, not track WR holders.
I see testing also indirectly keeping clean athletes from the track, that haven't met the Category A requirements for eligibility to compete.
Misleading deflection. To be picky, no one said these WR holders were caught with PEDs. To use logic, athletes dodge tests and use masking agents to hide their doping. Either way, you have no leg to stand on.
The important question is, where are your legs? Your logic looks like more speculation in these cases of the WR holders.
Misleading deflection. To be picky, no one said these WR holders were caught with PEDs. To use logic, athletes dodge tests and use masking agents to hide their doping. Either way, you have no leg to stand on.
Exactly. The “diuretic” is a known masking agent and was also at extremely high - well beyond therapeutic - levels. But ol’ rek has never been one to let actual facts get in the way of his being an apologist who provides astoundingly silly levels of deflection and rationalization.
Even extremely high levels of a diuretic is not generally considered a PED.
And on the contrary, I'm unapologetically in favor of more honest facts and less self-serving speculation.
Pretty sure the most talented East African are on the track…. They’re just getting outbeat by westerners because now we are looking for westerners that can actually compete with EA. I’ll admit that the African seem to have an advantage on the roads but this has definitely been evened out on the track. When was the last time you have seen a sub 13 race close In a 52? That put hocker in Mo territory who was definitely not slow and had some competitive 10k and 5k races in rio at fast times
I'm not so sure. While Rojo is looking at medals, in 2023 and 2024, East Africans from Kenya, Ethiopia, and Uganda swept the World Cross Country medals.
Yes, to the roads around 2010 or whereabouts maybe. The only thing that changed more recently for one group (esp. Kenya and Ethiopia) but not the other is the huge increase in PED testing, slowing beginning with the AIU in 2017, and then drastically increasing after Covid. See for example here in 2023:
Very very hard to ignore the connection there, especially with the catching of three WR holders in 2025.
It's rather misleading to use the term PED. In one case, the WR holder was busted for a diuretic, not generally considered a PED. In another case, the former WR holder was provisionally suspended for evasion, again, not a PED. I couldn't find the third WR holder you referred to. Furthermore, these were road WR holders, not track WR holders.
I see testing also indirectly keeping clean athletes from the track, that haven't met the Category A requirements for eligibility to compete.
It is very very misleading to pretend I used the term PED in the case of the three world record holders. Do better.
The third is Koech - ABP ban. 10 mile road. And 2x 5th over 10,000 track - showing you the deep interconnection between track and road. Of course even clear road and track runners are often part of the same team, see Kipyegon and Kipchoge coached by Sang, further demonstrating how track and road are intertwined (see also NOP and BTC and countless others).
Yes I know. World Athletics calls it a world best, but you usually prefer the everyday's terminology, no? Either way, no need to troll me on this forever, as it's often called world record, which is correct according to any dictionary:
Further, Chepngetich won worlds 2019. Along these lines, world record holder and world junior champ Kipruto - banned in 2024 (ABP) - won a bronze at worlds 2019.
As for Kandie, WR holder in the half marathon: he wanted to race the 10,000 at worlds 2025, but the poor guy got banned on March 14, 2025 for doping (yes that is the technically correct term for test evasion, rekrunner), while the qualifier came later in July. So, highly relevant for this discussion.
"I have the drive to prove to the world that I can also perform in track, that is why I made a decision to compete in a 10,000m event with the aim of securing an Olympic ticket," Kandie told Chinese state news agency, Xinhua News.
Are you still pretending increased testing has nothing to do with fewer medals for the Kenyans? Do you need more examples to accept the point? World champions Kiprop (EPO) and Manangoi (missed tests) also fell victim to the aggressive testing of the AIU, to use your words. Junior world champs Kwemoi (ABP) and Zakayo (missed tests) also come to mind. I am sure there is more.
Exactly. The “diuretic” is a known masking agent and was also at extremely high - well beyond therapeutic - levels. But ol’ rek has never been one to let actual facts get in the way of his being an apologist who provides astoundingly silly levels of deflection and rationalization.
Even extremely high levels of a diuretic is not generally considered a PED.
And on the contrary, I'm unapologetically in favor of more honest facts and less self-serving speculation.
That’s a lie and you know it. You truly are the lousiest of the boiler-room pilpul morons.
It is very very misleading to pretend I used the term PED in the case of the three world record holders. Do better.
The third is Koech - ABP ban. 10 mile road. And 2x 5th over 10,000 track - showing you the deep interconnection between track and road. Of course even clear road and track runners are often part of the same team, see Kipyegon and Kipchoge coached by Sang, further demonstrating how track and road are intertwined (see also NOP and BTC and countless others).
Yes I know. World Athletics calls it a world best, but you usually prefer the everyday's terminology, no? Either way, no need to troll me on this forever, as it's often called world record, which is correct according to any dictionary:
Further, Chepngetich won worlds 2019. Along these lines, world record holder and world junior champ Kipruto - banned in 2024 (ABP) - won a bronze at worlds 2019.
As for Kandie, WR holder in the half marathon: he wanted to race the 10,000 at worlds 2025, but the poor guy got banned on March 14, 2025 for doping (yes that is the technically correct term for test evasion, rekrunner), while the qualifier came later in July. So, highly relevant for this discussion.
Are you still pretending increased testing has nothing to do with fewer medals for the Kenyans? Do you need more examples to accept the point? World champions Kiprop (EPO) and Manangoi (missed tests) also fell victim to the aggressive testing of the AIU, to use your words. Junior world champs Kwemoi (ABP) and Zakayo (missed tests) also come to mind. I am sure there is more.
I pretended "It's rather misleading to use the term PED." WADA tests for many substances, some of which are potentially performance enhancing.
If you are saying that the specific cases of these three WR holders have nothing to do with PEDs, I guess I stand corrected.
I guess "world best" answers why Koech didn't appear in my search.
I also said increased testing was something more than nothing, by raising the barrier to eligibility to compete for all Category A athletes.
Yes, to the roads around 2010 or whereabouts maybe. The only thing that changed more recently for one group (esp. Kenya and Ethiopia) but not the other is the huge increase in PED testing, slowing beginning with the AIU in 2017, and then drastically increasing after Covid. See for example here in 2023:
Very very hard to ignore the connection there, especially with the catching of three WR holders in 2025.
It's rather misleading to use the term PED. In one case, the WR holder was busted for a diuretic, not generally considered a PED. In another case, the former WR holder was provisionally suspended for evasion, again, not a PED. I couldn't find the third WR holder you referred to. Furthermore, these were road WR holders, not track WR holders.
I see testing also indirectly keeping clean athletes from the track, that haven't met the Category A requirements for eligibility to compete.
This is a horrible take the, diuretic sole purpose is to mask PED ,?so she was clearly glowing, and avoiding a test means that your definitely glowing too
It's rather misleading to use the term PED. In one case, the WR holder was busted for a diuretic, not generally considered a PED. In another case, the former WR holder was provisionally suspended for evasion, again, not a PED. I couldn't find the third WR holder you referred to. Furthermore, these were road WR holders, not track WR holders.
I see testing also indirectly keeping clean athletes from the track, that haven't met the Category A requirements for eligibility to compete.
This is a horrible take the, diuretic sole purpose is to mask PED ,?so she was clearly glowing, and avoiding a test means that your definitely glowing too
Terrible or not, it is a factual take.
Aren't you paying attention? I was just told not to pretend that the term PED was used in these cases of the world record holders, because "it is very very misleading to pretend" so, and to "do better".
HCTZ has been around for more than six decades. Paraphrased from wikipedia: "the medication became commercially available in 1959. It is on the World Health Organization's List of Essential Medicines. In 2023, it was the sixteenth most commonly prescribed medication in the United States, with more than 31 million prescriptions."
You're telling me that the "sole purpose is to mask PED"? That's why the WHO considers it essential, and 31 million people in the US are taking it in 2023, trying to avoid testing positive?
With regards to who was clearly and definitely glowing, can't we please just stick to the actual and honest facts?
This is a horrible take the, diuretic sole purpose is to mask PED ,?so she was clearly glowing, and avoiding a test means that your definitely glowing too
Terrible or not, it is a factual take.
Aren't you paying attention? I was just told not to pretend that the term PED was used in these cases of the world record holders, because "it is very very misleading to pretend" so, and to "do better".
HCTZ has been around for more than six decades. Paraphrased from wikipedia: "the medication became commercially available in 1959. It is on the World Health Organization's List of Essential Medicines. In 2023, it was the sixteenth most commonly prescribed medication in the United States, with more than 31 million prescriptions."
You're telling me that the "sole purpose is to mask PED"? That's why the WHO considers it essential, and 31 million people in the US are taking it in 2023, trying to avoid testing positive?
With regards to who was clearly and definitely glowing, can't we please just stick to the actual and honest facts?
Do 31 million people compete in world athletics? You do realise various medications have other ancillary uses right?
Jakob gets attention because he breaks the usual distance running pattern. He wins championships, races aggressively, and shows up every season. Fans focus on him because he changes how races are run, not just who wins them. That consistency is rare and it drives the obsession.
This is a horrible take the, diuretic sole purpose is to mask PED ,?so she was clearly glowing, and avoiding a test means that your definitely glowing too
Terrible or not, it is a factual take.
Aren't you paying attention? I was just told not to pretend that the term PED was used in these cases of the world record holders, because "it is very very misleading to pretend" so, and to "do better".
HCTZ has been around for more than six decades. Paraphrased from wikipedia: "the medication became commercially available in 1959. It is on the World Health Organization's List of Essential Medicines. In 2023, it was the sixteenth most commonly prescribed medication in the United States, with more than 31 million prescriptions."
You're telling me that the "sole purpose is to mask PED"? That's why the WHO considers it essential, and 31 million people in the US are taking it in 2023, trying to avoid testing positive?
With regards to who was clearly and definitely glowing, can't we please just stick to the actual and honest facts?
Yes, and that's why a legal limit of 20ng/mL is permissable.
The amount in her system (3,800ng/mL) was nearly 200x the legal limit and she could provide no rational explanation for how it this came about.
Given that HCTZ is a known masking agent it's completely reasonable to infer from this that she was doping.
Yes, and that's why a legal limit of 20ng/mL is permissable.
The amount in her system (3,800ng/mL) was nearly 200x the legal limit and she could provide no rational explanation for how it this came about.
Given that HCTZ is a known masking agent it's completely reasonable to infer from this that she was doping.
I don't know why WADA sets threshold limits, as they don't make that public. My guess is that this low amount looks more like a threshold for unintended contamination during manufacture and bottling, rather than for a prescribed medicinal dose of a medication which is banned for athletes lacking an approved TUE.
Recall the goalpost applied to me was "let actual facts get in the way", not "reasonable to infer". If you want to reasonably infer someone doped with a diuretic, I am not in your way.
The point I made was that HCTZ, even 3800 ng/ml, is not generally considered a "PED", nor is the sole purpose of HCTZ to mask PEDs.
Context matters. The sole purpose of HCTZ for healthy elite marathon pros is to mask PEDs.
FYI, WADA publishes a lot in various documents. The arguments for this "threshold limit" (rather: Minimum Reporting Level) can be found in
WADA Technical Letter – TL24 Diuretics
1.0 Introduction WADA wishes to draw the attention of the Laboratories and Anti-Doping Organizations (ADOs) in charge of Results Management (the Results Management Authority, or RMA) to the following observations and instructions on the reporting of certain diuretics (namely, acetazolamide, bumetanide, furosemide, hydrochlorothiazide, torasemide, and triamterene), which are known to be found as contaminants of some legitimate pharmaceutical products. Diuretics may be abused to mask the presence in urine of other Prohibited Substances, or to induce weight loss in sports/disciplines where Athletes need to meet weight criteria. However, trace quantities of the six (6) diuretics named above have been found as contaminants in oral pharmaceutical products, including both products available by prescription and products available over the counter. While these products are still compliant with purity levels required by good manufacturing practices, the trace quantities of diuretics found in such products are sufficient to cause an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF). At estimated urinary concentrations of 20 ng/mL or less, these six (6) diuretics would not be effective to mask the presence of any other Prohibited Substances that may be present in the Sample. Therefore, the Minimum Reporting Level (MRL) for the six (6) diuretics identified above, set at 20 ng/mL, will minimize the risk of sanctioning Athletes who test positive due to the use of contaminated medications, without undermining the fight for clean sport.
Yes, and that's why a legal limit of 20ng/mL is permissable.
The amount in her system (3,800ng/mL) was nearly 200x the legal limit and she could provide no rational explanation for how it this came about.
Given that HCTZ is a known masking agent it's completely reasonable to infer from this that she was doping.
I don't know why WADA sets threshold limits, as they don't make that public. My guess is that this low amount looks more like a threshold for unintended contamination during manufacture and bottling, rather than for a prescribed medicinal dose of a medication which is banned for athletes lacking an approved TUE.
Recall the goalpost applied to me was "let actual facts get in the way", not "reasonable to infer". If you want to reasonably infer someone doped with a diuretic, I am not in your way.
The point I made was that HCTZ, even 3800 ng/ml, is not generally considered a "PED", nor is the sole purpose of HCTZ to mask PEDs.
Yes, but no one here has argued that it is a PED. And no one has argued that she doped with a diuretic.
What we are pointing out is that said diuretic can have a dual function as a masking agent and that, given that she has 200x the legal threshold in her system and was able to provide no explanation for this, it is reasonable to infer that she was doping.
Context matters. The sole purpose of HCTZ for healthy elite marathon pros is to mask PEDs.
FYI, WADA publishes a lot in various documents. The arguments for this "threshold limit" (rather: Minimum Reporting Level) can be found in
WADA Technical Letter – TL24 Diuretics
1.0 Introduction WADA wishes to draw the attention of the Laboratories and Anti-Doping Organizations (ADOs) in charge of Results Management (the Results Management Authority, or RMA) to the following observations and instructions on the reporting of certain diuretics (namely, acetazolamide, bumetanide, furosemide, hydrochlorothiazide, torasemide, and triamterene), which are known to be found as contaminants of some legitimate pharmaceutical products. Diuretics may be abused to mask the presence in urine of other Prohibited Substances, or to induce weight loss in sports/disciplines where Athletes need to meet weight criteria. However, trace quantities of the six (6) diuretics named above have been found as contaminants in oral pharmaceutical products, including both products available by prescription and products available over the counter. While these products are still compliant with purity levels required by good manufacturing practices, the trace quantities of diuretics found in such products are sufficient to cause an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF). At estimated urinary concentrations of 20 ng/mL or less, these six (6) diuretics would not be effective to mask the presence of any other Prohibited Substances that may be present in the Sample. Therefore, the Minimum Reporting Level (MRL) for the six (6) diuretics identified above, set at 20 ng/mL, will minimize the risk of sanctioning Athletes who test positive due to the use of contaminated medications, without undermining the fight for clean sport.
You are simply wrong to say it is the sole purpose, even for healthy elite athletes, as "Temp IQ" said.
And logically, it hardly makes sense to "mask" a "PED"(sic) with such a large dose of another easily detectable banned substance. A ban is a ban, regardless of the banned substance.
And it looks like the WADA TL24 confirms what I said about the low threshold representing contamination, rather than what "tiresome" suggested about permissable medicinal use.
Yes, but no one here has argued that it is a PED. And no one has argued that she doped with a diuretic.
What we are pointing out is that said diuretic can have a dual function as a masking agent and that, given that she has 200x the legal threshold in her system and was able to provide no explanation for this, it is reasonable to infer that she was doping.
Some of you are not saying "dual function", but rather "sole purpose". The only thing I said is it is not the "sole purpose", so it seems we are in agreement.
And we can already reasonably infer doping from the presence of HCTZ -- not sure what your point is there, but again, we are in agreement.
Apparently, "there is more" didn't use the term PED in the case of the three World Record holders. So now I'm asking myself why are we talking about PEDs?
African-born men swept the top 10 places at World XC today. Seems like the phenomenon RoJo identified is specific to the track.
I think the main reasons are as follows:
Prioritizing the roads over the track. As others have pointed out, it’s easier to make money on the roads. Look at Kiplimo: a prime talent who’s basically decided to give up on a global track title to go after the marathon.
Entry limits. When you are limited to three (rarely four) entries per country at global track championships, it’s more likely that other countries will get in the mix. The East African teams are so good that they have legit medal threats not making the start line. I know it’s not a track event, but look at Tola in the Paris marathon. He was supposed to be an alternate, and then won the whole thing! The Ultimate Champs will be interesting, as they don’t have such a limit.
Slow and tactical racing. This lets a lot more people stay in the mix, and usually one of them will have a good day. Due to the heat in Tokyo, all the distance finals went this way.
I think Western athletes are certainly getting better, but let’s not get ahead of ourselves. The depth of the East Africans is still unreal, especially when you look at it per capita.
