This is a list of dopers who won World Marathon Majors, but not in all cases (like Wilson Kipsang) did they get caught at this particular race. I expect that I have missed many names or performances. Who else has been caught?
Wow what a long and frustrating list, thanks. That should stop the trolls from claiming doping is rare, or even worse, does not work...
Missing are:
Sarah Chepchirchir, Tokyo 2017 Daniel Wanjiru, London 2017
Sadly, no, drug cheats don't get retro-active bans. His positive tests started in October 2025, therefore Albert Korir will keep both his Ottawa wins, and all his NYC placements except for the 2025 one.
He tested positive in three different samples, taken by ADAK, in October, but apparently never before that, and apparently not even triggering the ABP.
In the past, the AIU used the ABP as evidence to reach further back than the start of the ban to annul races.
This is a list of dopers who won World Marathon Majors, but not in all cases (like Wilson Kipsang) did they get caught at this particular race. I expect that I have missed many names or performances. Who else has been caught?
Wow what a long and frustrating list, thanks. That should stop the trolls from claiming doping is rare, or even worse, does not work...
Missing are:
Sarah Chepchirchir, Tokyo 2017 Daniel Wanjiru, London 2017
Slow down. This list doesn't show that "doping works", only that many believe it does.
This athlete tests positive 3 times and then accepts all charges and you're still at the 'I need to see more evidence before I label him a drug cheat' stage.
People think you're a doping/doper defender because there has never been a drug cheat where you've said 'Fine, this guy's a cheat'. You always have an excuse, even when the athlete admits to doing it.
If you want to get it straight, then you should think exactly the opposite. Given the circumstances of three positives for CERA one month before a race, I said it was "defendable" to call him one. I don't need to see any more evidence.
You said it was 'defendable' to call him a drug cheat, but you stopped short of calling him one yourself.
What will happen to the prize money he stole from races including NYCM?
He did NOT steal money. He won the money by competing. Jealousy gets you nowhere. Try to compete yourself instead of criticizing others who are more successful than you.
You compete within a certain set of rules. Not using PEDs is one of those rules. He broke the rules and so he was effectively stealing all the money he was awarded. As has every other Kenyan busted for PEDs. ALL of the prize money stolen by doping Kenyan athletes should be given back to the sport.
If you want to get it straight, then you should think exactly the opposite. Given the circumstances of three positives for CERA one month before a race, I said it was "defendable" to call him one. I don't need to see any more evidence.
You said it was 'defendable' to call him a drug cheat, but you stopped short of calling him one yourself.
Isn't that just semantics? I did not defend Korir's doping positives. Why should I be expected to act out all these rituals?
This does not support, and nothing supports, all these other claims that I am an "African sympathizer", or "Kenyan sympathizer", or a "doping defender".
At my core, I am a defender of the scientific method, "an empirical method for acquiring knowledge through careful observation, rigorous skepticism, hypothesis testing, and experimental validation", and a defender of the principle of justice that persons are innocent until proven guilty.
I have no interest in jumping through artificial hoops, and meet others' expectations by uttering the right words at the right moment, in order to gain acceptance among the masses, who just say what they believe with no semblance of scientific rigor or principle of justice.
Isn't that just semantics? I did not defend Korir's doping positives. Why should I be expected to act out all these rituals?
This does not support, and nothing supports, all these other claims that I am an "African sympathizer", or "Kenyan sympathizer", or a "doping defender".
At my core, I am a defender of the scientific method, "an empirical method for acquiring knowledge through careful observation, rigorous skepticism, hypothesis testing, and experimental validation", and a defender of the principle of justice that persons are innocent until proven guilty.
I have no interest in jumping through artificial hoops, and meet others' expectations by uttering the right words at the right moment, in order to gain acceptance among the masses, who just say what they believe with no semblance of scientific rigor or principle of justice.
It's not semantics at all.
You're basically saying 'I can see where people are coming from by calling this guy a drug cheat, but he's almost certainly not because......'
Even a guy who accepts all charges has you thinking 'wait a minute, this must be another false positive just like every single other person who fails a drug test'.
And even if he completely admits to taking the stuff you'll just go back to the old Renato classic: 'Drugs don't work on Africans, they're too friendly, innocent and religious for them to work', or something.
You're basically saying 'I can see where people are coming from by calling this guy a drug cheat, but he's almost certainly not because......'
Even a guy who accepts all charges has you thinking 'wait a minute, this must be another false positive just like every single other person who fails a drug test'.
And even if he completely admits to taking the stuff you'll just go back to the old Renato classic: 'Drugs don't work on Africans, they're too friendly, innocent and religious for them to work', or something.
I never said that. I don't think "this must be another false positive", and have no reason to doubt the AIU's findings.
Again with the "Africans" -- I have always assumed drugs work for Africans the same way they do for non-Africans.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
An athlete was busted and prayed to God for another chance. After the ban ended the athlete competed again, and was caught and banned again. This happened until one day the athlete passed away due to drug related complications. The athlete asked God why he did not allow the.use the PEDs without suffering as a result. To which God replied by asking why the athlete did not take the opportuniy to join the Enhanced Games.
You're basically saying 'I can see where people are coming from by calling this guy a drug cheat, but he's almost certainly not because......'
Even a guy who accepts all charges has you thinking 'wait a minute, this must be another false positive just like every single other person who fails a drug test'.
And even if he completely admits to taking the stuff you'll just go back to the old Renato classic: 'Drugs don't work on Africans, they're too friendly, innocent and religious for them to work', or something.
I never said that. I don't think "this must be another false positive", and have no reason to doubt the AIU's findings.
Again with the "Africans" -- I have always assumed drugs work for Africans the same way they do for non-Africans.
Yeah, the same way as in 'not at all'.
I do concede you're pretty even handed when it comes to defending drug cheats. It just so happens that most of them are African so it looks like you defend them more.
I do concede you're pretty even handed when it comes to defending drug cheats. It just so happens that most of them are African so it looks like you defend them more.