Two years ago, Ruth Chepngetich set a new women’s marathon world record at the Chicago Marathon, completing the race in 2 hours, 9 minutes, and 56 seconds. The time shattered the previous record by nearly two minutes and marked a personal best improvement of five minutes. Initially hailed as a historic achievement, Chepngetich’s performance drew both acclaim and skepticism. Shortly after, questions about doping emerged, culminating in a failed drug test five months later and a three-year suspension from competition.

Despite the ban, Chepngetich’s world record remains officially recognized because she passed doping controls on the day of the race. The Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU), which investigated the case, has acknowledged that while the record’s status is unsatisfactory, the World Anti-Doping Code currently prevents revoking results retroactively without direct evidence of doping at the time of the performance.

Chepngetich tested positive for hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ), a banned diuretic often used as a masking agent, at levels 20 times above the allowable limit. Her explanation, attributing the substance to medication belonging to her housemaid, was described by the AIU as implausible. The investigation also uncovered messages on her phone related to testosterone and unspecified doping programs, though Chepngetich has denied ever using testosterone and characterized those messages as originating from group chats.

The AIU’s position reflects broader challenges in addressing doping violations connected to past performances. Legal experts and anti-doping authorities emphasize that removing results without concrete evidence of doping at the time would risk violating principles of proportionality and athletes’ rights. Comparisons to high-profile cases, such as Lance Armstrong’s, highlight procedural differences that limit the applicability of retrospective sanctions in Chepngetich’s case.

To prevent similar controversies, some experts have proposed innovative measures such as requiring athletes to sign agreements that would allow for potential disqualification of results if doping violations are discovered within a set period after the achievement. However, implementing such a system would require widespread agreement across sports organizations, governments, and legal authorities, making significant reform unlikely in the near term.

Athletics has recorded notable progress in anti-doping efforts over the past decade. Since its establishment in 2017, the AIU has sanctioned more than 300 elite Kenyan athletes, including Chepngetich, underscoring the sport’s commitment to clean competition. The unit operates with a relatively modest budget, focused on targeted testing and investigations.

There are also encouraging signs from the sport’s stakeholders emphasizing integrity. Before Sabastian Sawe set a men’s marathon world record in London, his sponsor Adidas invested in additional drug testing. Similarly, Nike funded extra tests for its athletes Jacob Kiplimo and Brigid Kosgei prior to the Chicago Marathon. Sawe’s agent, Eric Lilot, has suggested extending contractual obligations to athletes that would require forfeiting sponsorship payments if intentional doping is proven.

While Chepngetich’s record remains a contentious topic, the increased vigilance and collaboration among athletes, sponsors, and anti-doping agencies point to continued efforts to safeguard the credibility of athletics moving forward.