2019 Pikes Peak Marathon Results

2019 Pikes Peak Marathon - Golden Trail Series

The Pikes Peak Marathon is a one-of-kind race. Runners begin on the streets of Manitou Springs, Colorado, run a half marathon to the top of 14,115-foot Pikes Peak on the historic Barr Trail while climbing 7,770 feet, and descend all the way back to downtown Manitou again. Add in the factors of altitude, Colorado’s hot summer temperatures, an at-times-sandy trail, now 64 years of history, as well as deep competition and this adds up to a race story as unique as the event itself.

Kilian Jornet returned to this race for the second time, his first time since 2012, and ran unchallenged at the race’s helm, finishing in the sixth-fastest time in the race’s now-64-year history. Maude Mathys, too, proved untouchable in the women’s race, setting a big new women’s course record.

Thanks to Salomon for making our coverage of this year’s Pikes Peak Marathon possible!

To get all the latest ultra news from iRunFar.com, subscribe via RSS or email.

2019 Pikes Peak Marathon Men’s Race

There was a lot of speculation prior to the 2019 Pikes Peak Marathon, especially around Matt Carpenter’s record of 3:16:22 which he set in 1993 and whether the Spaniard who lives in Norway Kilian Jornet (pre-race and post-race interviews) could possibly break it. Many people thought he could and many thought he wouldn’t–the latter group including Jornet himself who said pre-race that Carpenter’s record was something “really special.” By just a couple miles into the race, Jornet had already broken free of the field and basically solo time trialled the rest of the event. He summited Pikes Peak in 2:09, some eight minutes off record pace but four minutes in front of anyone else, proving himself a level in front of the rest of the men’s field but not on the level of Carpenter circa 1993. Between the summit and the finish line, Jornet put another 7.5 minutes on everyone else, crossing the line in 3:27:28. No doubt, this is a fast time, the sixth-fastest in the race’s long and competitive history.

Kilian Jornet near the summit of Pikes Peak on his way to winning the 2019 Pikes Peak Marathon. Photo: iRunFar/Meghan Hicks

After a couple rough races, American Sage Canaday (post-race interview) has come on strong with his 11th place at Sierre-Zinal two weekends ago and now a great performance here. Canaday ran among the men’s leaders until just after halfway up the half-marathon ascent. From there all the way up to the 14,000-plus-foot peak, he built a gap on the rest of the men’s field, arriving to the top in second place and 3.5 minutes in front of third. He said after the race that he knew he was a better ascender than descender, so he wanted to get a gap to the top that he could hold to the finish. This is exactly what he did, arriving to the finish line still solidly in second. His 3:39 finish improves upon his sixth-place debut here last year in 3:46.

Sage Canaday running toward second place at the 2019 Pikes Peak Marathon. Photo: iRunFar/Meghan Hicks

Switzerland’s Marc Lauenstein (post-race interview), who was the 2014 Pikes Peak Marathon champion, arrived to the Pikes Peak summit in third place, looking calm and floating in the high-altitude thin air. He opened it up on the descent to clock the day’s second-fastest downhill. It quite the charge, not enough to catch second-place Canaday but plenty fast to hold off everyone else.

2014 Pikes Peak Marathon champion Marc Lauenstein takes third at the race’s 2019 edition. Photo: iRunFar/Bryon Powell

Spaniard Aritz Egea and American David Sinclair seemed to battle for much of the race, the pair arriving to the summit within just a few seconds of each other, Sinclair a bit ahead. Their duel went all the way to the line with Egea and his Basque Country bloodline beating Sinclair by just about a half minute. It was Sinclair’s second year in a row of finishing in fifth.

2019 Pikes Peak Marathon Men’s Results

  1. Kilian Jornet (Salomon) – 3:27:28 (pre-race and post-race interviews)
  2. Sage Canaday (Hoka One One) – 3:39:03 (post-race interview)
  3. Marc Lauenstein (Salomon) – 3:40:29 (post-race interview)
  4. Aritz Egea (Salomon) – 3:45:56
  5. David Sinclair (Salomon) – 3:46:35
  6. Henri Ansio (Salomon) – 3:47:07
  7. Thibaut Baronian (Salomon) – 3:47:35
  8. Juan Carlos Carera (Buff) – 3:48:02
  9. Michelino Sunseri – 3:48:47
  10. Francesco Puppi (Hoka One One) – 3:50:04
  11. Christian Gering (Salomon) – 3:50:15
  12. Petter Engdahl (Salomon) – 3:51:02
  13. José Quispe – 3:54:23
  14. Jacob Adkin (Salomon) – 3:57:21
  15. Andy Wacker (Nike Trail) – 3:58:46
  16.  Rémi Bonnet (Salomon) – 4:05:46 (pre-race interview)
  17. Karl Egloff  (Movistar) – 4:07:22
  18. Scott Spillman – 4:10:05
  19. Tim Freriks (Hoka One One ) – 4:11:03 (pre-race interview)
  20. Max King (Salomon) – 4:13:03

Full results.

2019 Pikes Peak Marathon Women’s Race

Ahead of the race, much more talk was about the men’s record than the women’s. Despite this, it was Switzerland’s Maude Mathys who put on the master class of record breaking. After her Sierre-Zinal showdown, where she set a record two weeks ago, she had a bright day here on Pikes Peak too. She started in the front, pushed the pace, and gained all her time on the record on the uphill. At Barr Camp, 7.6 miles into the race, she was more than six minutes up on the record. Then, at the summit turnaround, she was 13-plus-minutes ahead of the record. Like Kilian Jornet in the men’s race, Mathys solo at the front of the women’s race went more like a time trial. From the summit to the finish, she ran very strong, but not fast enough to gain any more time on the record. Her 4:02:41 is a new course record that bests Megan Kimmel’s 2018 time of 4:15:04 by about 12.5 minutes.

(In 2015, Mathys received a warning without suspension from the Disciplinary Chamber for Doping Cases of Swiss Olympic for two positive tests for clomifene [previously clomiphene] after it was determined that she was mistakenly taking the drug without first obtaining a World Anti-Doping Agency Therapeutic Use Exemption. Mathys’s Quartz Program profile shows regular health monitoring and a July 2019 anti-doping control. Quartz Program info.)

Maude Mathys setting a new Pikes Peak Marathon record at the race’s 2019 edition. Photo: iRunFar/Bryon Powell

Yngvild Kaspersen (pre-race and post-race interviews) had her own fantastic race. By the time she passed Barr Camp at mile 7.6, she was a minute in front of the rest of the field. This lead would basically grow by a few seconds to a minute each time we saw her. Kaspersen, a Norwegian who lives at sea level, said after the race that she was nervous about the extremely high altitude of Pikes Peak. It turns out she had not much to worry about, as she looked like she was jogging easily at the summit turnaround. She also said that her two-week vacation in Colorado ahead of the race probably helped her to feel comfortable up there. Kaspersen had a great downhill run, posting the day’s fastest women’s downhill split and crossing the line with a gap to the rest of the field.

Yngvild Kaspersen looking strong in second at the 2019 Pikes Peak Marathon. Photo: iRunFar/Meghan Hicks

Strong, steady, and even-keeled on both the uphill and downhill is how I would describe South Africa’s Meg Mackenzie’s (pre-race and post-race interviews) performance. And honestly, I found this effort to be quite impressive because it looked like she experienced all-day pressure from Amandine Ferrato of France. A bit like the men’s race pair Aritz Egea and David Sinclair, Mackenzie and Ferrato were almost always passing us within a few seconds of each other. At the summit turnaround, it was actually Ferrato who arrived in third and Mackenzie fourth. By halfway down the descent, Mackenzie moved solidly into third and was two minutes ahead of fourth-place Ferrato, a gap she’d basically take to the finish.

Meg Mackenzie summiting Pikes Peak en route to third place at the 2019 Pikes Peak Marathon. Photo: iRunFar/Meghan Hicks

Spain’s Eli Gordón (pre-race interview) had a move-up-from-the-back kind of race, starting out in the back half of the women’s top 10 and then moving into the top five by the race’s halfway point. Her work was not yet done, though, as she was challenged by the women behind her to maintain a fast descent pace. She looked truly relieved to cross the finish line in Manitou Springs as the fifth-place finisher.

2019 Pikes Peak Marathon Women’s Results

  1. Maude Mathys (Salomon) – 4:02:41
  2. Yngvild Kaspersen (adidas) – 4:27:26 (pre-race and post-race interviews)
  3. Meg Mackenzie (Salomon) – 4:32:19 (pre-race and post-race interviews)
  4. Amandine Ferrato (Hoka One One) – 4:34:09
  5. Eli Gordón (Salomon) – 4:43:46 (pre-race interview)
  6. Sara Kadlec – 4:45:44
  7. Sarah Guhl – 5:06:29
  8. Céline Lafaye (Merrell) – 5:07:08
  9. Becca Bramley – 5:14:57
  10. Julie Powell – 5:15:38
  11. Wendy Stalnaker – 5:41:48
  12. Carly Wilborn – 5:44:40
  13. Ellie Webb – 5:47:00
  14. Dawn Greenwalt – 5:47:28
  15. Gina Harcrow – 6:00:28
  16. Alana Papula – 6:01:45
  17. Melissa Mincic – 6:02:22
  18. Freya Powers Stein – 6:15:25
  19. Erin Bonthron – 6:15:39
  20. Janice Flynn – 6:16:29

Full results.

Coverage Thanks

Thank you to our coverage team who spread out over Pikes Peak to bring you coverage, including Kim Wrinkle, Tom Caughlan, Brandon Stapanowich, Kris Miller, Stephen Gnoza, Ivan Schwendt, David Hedges, Melissa Saliba, Dreama Walton and her family, Mitch Walma, and Steve Bremner. Thank you also to Casey Szesze and Mauri Pagliacci who provided invaluable support in the iRunFar office.

Meghan Hicks

is the Managing Editor of iRunFar and the author of 'Where the Road Ends: A Guide to Trail Running.' The converted road runner finished her first trail ultramarathon in 2006 and loves using running to visit the world's wildest places.

There are 69 comments

  1. Steve

    ‘In 2015, Mathys received a warning without suspension from the Disciplinary Chamber for Doping Cases of Swiss Olympic for two positive tests for clomifene [previously clomiphene] after it was determined that she was mistakenly taking the drug without first obtaining a World Anti-Doping Agency Therapeutic Use Exemption’

    I think this has been rolled out a few times now as way of excusing the behaviour and some people might be nervous about challenging it as it was supposedly taken in order to support attempts to become pregnant. If Mathys is a professional athlete (full-time or part-time) then obtaining a TUE is part of her job. If she isn’t doing part of her job properly in a way that compromises her or other athletes then she risks and/or deserves to have that job taken away from her. If you were a health professional and broke a code of conduct/practice this is what would happen.

    Too many people are making excuses for Mathys (including high profile commentators like Ian Corless) by repeatedly trotting this comment out. Another example that springs to mind is cyclist Lizzie Deignan (nee Armistead) who fell foul of the three missed tests rule, then had it reneged after rolling out a sob story about why one test was unfair. Again, sorry Lizzie, but this is your job. If you are a professional athlete this is part of what you have to do. Professional athletes are clearly abusing the TUE system and people like Mathys have been adding to this problem.

    I recognise there is a differences between men and women and I have picked out two examples of female athletes. To guard against accusations of sexism, I can’t understand why coaches, athletic federations and medical professionals are not engaged in almost constant conversation with female athletes to avoid these types of issues related to female-specific health. I honestly think this shows that the system itself may be sexist and imbalanced, but that doesn’t mean that people like Mathys are making a mockery of this by not taking responsibility for their own actions and the sport’s image.

    1. Meghan Hicks


      The language we use to describe Maude Mathys’s situation was intentionally chosen in an attempt to be brief but thorough. In Mathys’s case, the governing body gave what I might call an ‘alternate sanction’–a public warning as opposed to a ban of that governing body’s standard length for the determined infraction–in doing so citing its acknowledgement of Mathys’s intent to use the drug for fertility rather than performance-enhancing purposes. Because the sanction is unique, we wanted to supply a brief synopsis of how it came to be in addition to our ‘normal’ disclosure of the infraction and sanction.

      1. Steve

        Megan – I’m not being critical of the information being included, quite the opposite. Mathys’s stated intent for use was fertility, but there must be a performance enhancing benefit to it otherwise it wouldn’t require a TUE. Maria Sharapova was using medication for years for a heart condition… My concern is that this statement is being used to cover up general and specific inadequacies with the system which is allowing prize money to be taken by people who are convicted dopers or people who have flown very close to the sun.

    2. Claudio

      Steve, there is some naivety in your comment here. A dangerous naivety.
      First thing, WADA is not working with Pikes Peak Marathon nor they could support the efforts of a private company (Salomon), as they can only work with federations for obvious reasons.
      Then we have this athlete who had a warning from a federation for positive tests of clomifene. Clomifene is a WADA-listed substance but, hey, does it actually enhance the performance of a female runner? To my understanding, WADA applies to the same list of prohibition to any kind of sport including chess. Is the policy of I Run Far directed against the use of performance enhancers or, well, it is enough that you get a warning for positive tests for a non-performance-enhancing substance, to be black-listed by I Run Far.
      Then we have all those who cast their stones. Camille Herron, who doesn’t mind to run on Vaporfly 4, has been very vocal on Maude Mathys. Greg Vollet, Salomon athletes team manager, is a convicted doper himself but, well, doesn’t everybody deserve a second chance? I think so. And so does I Run Far, that diligently covers Salomon promoted events.
      Wouldn’t be better if I Run Far, instead of playing the heroes of a campaign of moralization, would try to investigate, understand and produce information? Elisa Desco’s public shaming could have had really bad consequences: who takes the responsibility for the harassment that Elisa has suffered? Elisa had served her ban: who is I Run Far (and Sage Canaday, and Camille Herron, and Magdalena Boulet) to call for public shaming of this person?!?
      You want to be a moralistic fanzine? I’m okay with that. Then please do not offer coverage of heavily sponsored money-prized events. Ultimately, don’t try to make a living for yourself out of all this.
      This is my opinion.

      1. Stefan C.

        Really good points, Claudio.
        I love Irunfar and I sure hope that they don’t go anywhere! To lose them would be a great loss in my opinion. But, at the same time perhaps some “tweaks” to their policy would be a good idea.
        I think that all of those names that you mentioned above like Sage, Herron etc., can stand to take a good long look in the mirror before casting their stones.

        1. SageCanaday

          And why do you think I should take a “long look in the mirror” again? Because I follow the rules of the sport? Yeah, if a race course/event says you have to run a certain distance and not cut switchbacks on the trails I follow the rules to a T….even when no-one is watching. If the rules of the race say you can’t take aid outside of an aid station I won’t take a sip of water from a spectator. If a race says you can’t take certain PEDs to boost performance and be “superhuman” against your competition – then I don’t take PEDs. It’s really a simple matter of right and wrong. Of being honest or not. I’ve been cheated before on the roads by a guy that was later caught taking EPO. He displaced many of us clean runners….stole money from them…changed our whole career trajectory. Set a bad example for kids that taking powerful drugs to make physical gains in the sport was the only way to “make it as a pro.” A lot of these PEDs have long term negative health effects. And now because people like Camille and I (and iRunFar) stand up for #cleansport you are critical? Claudio speaks about a “dangerous naivety” but then makes some very poor comparisons in his comment above IMO. The fact is we know the sport is not 100% clean and there are a lot of top athletes making quite a bit of money from the benefits of pushing our bodies to the absolute limit. I think that even a 2-year ban for something like EPO is way too minor. Offenders get a second chance already. Other infractions are only a several month ban? It is not that harsh really. I’ve been running (Racing) for 21 years straight. What I would not like to see is have this sport of MUT Running (I sport that I love and work hard at by following the rules ) become like cycling. Without more testing, more transparency, and stricter penalties for infractions I’m afraid it will be. Maybe you should take a look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself: “why does talking about doping and #cleansport make me so uneasy and critical to even comment on here about it?. I know my bias and stake in this competitive sport. What is your bias? Would you not stand up for clean hard work and honesty and integrity that I believe are pillars to such demanding endurance endeavors?

          1. Claudio

            I appreciate your willingness to discuss. Being myself an amateur, my bias is that I do stand for #cleansport and I applaud the hard work and the integrity of athletes like you, as well as clean results (btw, congratulations for your race last weekend) and even just a joyful expression of love for this sort. I like Andy Symonds. Do you know Andy Symonds?
            That being said, I am afraid money is making its way, mountain running is business for so many people, the best athletes compete in races organized by private entities, Skyrunning, Golden Trails, ITRA, is it there a shared field where federations (not private entities!) would move together toward the #cleansport target? how do you know that mountain running is not as troubled as cycling is?
            At least cycling goes with shared rules, they have federations, they have WADA. And yes, they have dopers.
            Dopers in mountain running have only been spotted among those who competed in IAAF events (Elisa Desco, Petro Mamu) or pro cycling (Greg Vollet). What about the others?
            Trusting that a private company with conflict of interests would really do for a clean compet is totally naive. You (and irunfar) really want to take a stand? then it should be a stand against Salomon, to begin with. Do not compete in their events, do not cover them.
            Shaming publicly Elisa Desco or Maude Mathys does’t make any good to your cause. And that is what I call dangerous naivety: I mean, it can be dangerous for Elisa, for Maude, for anybody who has to go through bullying of some sort, just because someone is not happy with the sentence of a court (Elisa’s sentence was a 2 years ban). You want to stand for lifetime bans, then provide arguments.
            I quote you: “It’s really a simple matter of right and wrong”. You sure?!
            I have a couple of questions here:
            1) What is doping. What is a PED. Was clomifene an actual PED for a female runner (I believe you can answer this question much better than anybody else).
            2) Is it a completely safe procedure what WADA applies to sampling, testing and retaining (see claims of Sandro Donati, a whole career consecrated to pursuing the ideal of #cleansport, on the 2nd unbelievable ban of Alex Schwazer). Is it okay that we apply to lifetime bans in a situation of, somewhat, lack of clarity?
            Please answer these questions, Sage.
            The mirror is not there to tell you how honest you are, not only that (and I do trust 100% your honesty). The mirror is also there to tell you how much you can be analytical and informative, the sole way, to my opinion, to fight effectively for #cleansport.
            This is tru for an athlete who takes a stand, this is more true for a journalist (irunfar).
            Read this if you want: https://www.sportsintegrityinitiative.com/iaaf-sabotage-alleged-in-testing-of-alex-schwazer/

            1. Steven

              What has Andy Symonds got to do with this? Andy has been a top level runner for years, I’m sure he’s had to piss in a few pots over the years, especially with the amount of races he has done in Europe.

              What is doping? Let’s leave this to the scientists. If they think something should be banned, it should be banned. You do realise cheats experiment with different things in order to gain a 0.1% improvement right? Like Sharapova taking heart medication for years… Give me a break.

            2. SageCanaday

              I will answers your simple questions first:
              1. Where do we draw the line at doping/PEDs/drugs? Simple. WADA rules and code. I can drink coffee and take caffeine but I can’t take testosterone. It is not that hard to not take a banned PED. An elite sponsored athlete has no excuse not to look at the list. Very simple.

              2. Of course money and conflicts of interests can create problems in any thing. But I think a lot of doping is tied up in ego as well. That is why some mid packers might dope. Bragging rights. Strava segments. The pull of gaining social media followers and having people cheer from you (Aside from sponsor support, prize money, travel perks) may be the strongest incentive. So transparency is key here. Thank goodness iRunFar doesn’t gloss over this kind of stuff. They are real.

              3. I’ve been all for WADA standard testing and of course there has been corruption at times in other sports and there are conflicts of interest and bias with federations etc. So it is better to be objective with facts here. We’ve seen a positive EPO test at UMTB too remember (so not just IAAF events). The flexibility with trail mountain races is that a lot are private and they can make their own rules on who is allowed to compete for podium spots and actual prize money. That can be a good thing in some cases I think.

              4. Again, I say the more real PED testing the better. There is hardly any in MUT Running from what I’ve seen. They should test us with surprise tests between races. I’d donate my own money for that. I’d share my location and “training camp trips” to get tested. I’m all for good science and evidence based penalties. I’m very into numbers and quantitative data.

              5. I do think MUT Running is a lot cleaner than cycling and most sports still. There is not as much money involved! I came from road running and track remember. Of course I’d like to see it closer to 100% clean and as I have money, sponsorhip, and my career/reputation on the line so I’m biased, but I value honesty and integrity and what something hard like endurance sport (running) is all about. If an athlete that I coach gets cheated out of an age group award or qualifying for the Boston marathon I’d be mad too.

              6. You still seem to have more bias to want to talk about this though? You list specific cases and athletes/coaches? Are you from Europe?

              In any case thanks for your support and for challenging me to see another perspective. I can see this is a delicate situation but it is not one I take lightly.

              7. Dopers are not just cheaters…in sport, they are stealing money (fraud) and ruining people’s dreams and opportunities. People go to jail for much less infractions.

              The irony is that I also get bullied. For standing up for the rules of the sport and the truth! #cleansport

            3. Claudio

              read better: I say “I like Andy Symonds”. I like him because he is a clean, funny runner, very positive and joyful attitude, and he is not a pro. I say this because I was asked about my “bias”.
              And I am a scientist actually (by education). Clomiphene is not a PED in endurance sports. period. It happens that WADA lists everything for every sport: Clomiphene is listed also for chess…
              Take your break now.

            4. Claudio

              Thank you again. i am from the Dolomites, Italy, but I live in Minnesota since 4 years.
              Well.. Here you’re going too far from the point. Basically you say: yes, clomiphene is not a PED in this specific case (that’s the way I read through your verbiage), although WADA listed. An elite athlete should pay attention…
              But I believe that “lack of attention” is not enough to be the subject of public shaming. I believe that irunfar should apologize with Maude Mathys.

            5. Jackson Lee

              I think if Elisa Desco had just admitted to the cheating and apologized, she wouldn’t face as much backlash. Instead, she continued to deny it and claimed an error on the test. And anybody who takes a minute to look into it would know a false positive for EPO is basically impossible. So the fact that she continues to lie about using EPO makes people not like her since she has continued to be a dishonest person.

            6. SageCanaday

              I don’t think I said anything about Clomifene….

              Here, you are now misquoting me and suggesting I wrote things and suggested things that I didn’t write or imply. Please stop.

              Again, I follow WADA rules and believe in fair play and a clean sport.

            7. Claudio

              I apologize, I feel I bothered you.
              Actually my question was:
              “What is doping. What is a PED. Was clomifene an actual PED for a female runner (I believe you can answer this question much better than anybody else)”
              I thought you were answering my question, therefore guessed you said that for you counts only the WADA list, even if not all prohibited substances do for the actual enhancement of the performances.
              I’ve also specified: “that’s the way I read through your verbiage”.
              sorry again
              and now.. I’m out of here.

        2. Claudio

          just for the sake of clarity, I mean all those pro runners who take a stand, they should be smarter than just barking “cheater! cheater!” through social media. I am not insinuating anything, actually I believe Sage Canaday is a true example of #cleansport

      2. Steve

        Claudio – I don’t think I’m dangerously naive at all. As per my comment to Meghan above – Mathys’s stated intent for use was fertility, but there must be a performance enhancing benefit to it otherwise it wouldn’t require a TUE. At the bare minimum there is a concern that there could be performance enhancing benefits from usage.

        The athletes out there trying to make a living from this are having money taken away from them by people who have fallen foul of sanctions, it’s that simple.

        This website’s editorial stance is the realm of Meghan and Bryon, it has nothing to do with me. However, I am glad they are drawing attention to this because it is the thin end of the wedge. And no, dopers don’t deserve a second chance as it cannot be proven there are no long-term benefits from having doped once. Elisa Desco has no business picking up prize money or taking part at any race. We’re not talking about a kangaroo court here, this is an official sanction. If i break the law, it is a matter of fact. If I have a public profile, people might talk about that. If I’m an athlete convicted of doping intended to cheat my fellow competitors out of places and money, people should never stop talking about it.

        1. Claudio

          you are naive when you make a statement as “there must be a performance enhancing benefit to it otherwise it wouldn’t require a TUE”.
          And echoing a campaign of public shaming, as you do, is dangerous. Be mature: you are calling Maude Mathys a cheater without knowing for sure what you are talking about (“there must be”).

        2. Nicolas

          “no, dopers don’t deserve a second chance as it cannot be proven there are no long-term benefits from having doped once.”

          This is insane. No one has yet provided a cogent rationale for why dopers (Mathys isn’t even one but let’s set that aside) should deserve a lifetime scarlet letter.

          1. Steve

            It’s not insane in the slightest. No one has yet provided a cogent rationale for why dopers SHOULDN’T receive a lifetime ban. Your use of the term scarlet letter is also pejorative and taken out on context from the story it appeared in. We’re not talking about adultery, we’re talking about doping.

            Let me give you an example. A sprinter takes anabolic steroids, can train harder and recover quicker for x amount of time. Then they get popped and take a two year ban, during which time they continue to train, then return to competition.

            Where is the proof that the period of doping does not have a long-term benefit beyond the period of administering the banned substance? If there is no proof that it doesn’t you simply cannot allow the person back into the sport. Is that harsh? Sure, but you cannot give cheaters an advantage over their fair competitors.

            1. Nicolas

              For one thing, the punishment is harsh enough that the burden should be on you, not us. I mean, the bar for punishment to be justified should be higher than it is for justifying a lack of punishment.

              As for long-term effects, by your reasoning, there shouldn’t be any TUE at all. Correct? The problem then is not that she didn’t ask for a TUE but that she took something that MIGHT have long-term effects, even though no evidence points in that direction. Again, pretty harsh.

            2. Nicolas

              I forgot—the scarlet letter reference is apt. It’s a metaphor. And Herron has been using the hashtag on Twitter.

            3. Steve

              Cursory use of a search engine on your behalf will show that it is from a Nathanial Hawthorne novel used to mark women guilty of adultery. On this occasion you and Camille Herron are wrong.

            4. Steve

              I’m just going to go ahead and risk the comment being deleted but you’re a troll Nicolas.

              You’re a troll because you’re not responding to reasoned argument.

              You’re a troll because you’re shooting from the hip and scattering incoherent comments through this thread.

            5. Meghan Hicks

              Hey everyone, a quick note to ask everyone to continue discussing according to our comment policy. Please feel welcome to keep on with the discourse, but let’s keep it constructive and respectful of all commenters. Further comments not in line with our comment policy will be subject to removal/not publishing. Thank you.

            6. Nicolas

              Love you, Steve. If you disagree with the substance or form of what I write, say it; don’t resort to insult. I replied to your comment *with reasoned argument*, questioned your assumptions and the consistency of your reasoning. Where did I go wrong?

  2. TimI

    Thanks for the wonderful coverage. I kept looking for Anita Ortiz in the feed and now in the results. I don’t see her listed anywhere. Did she run? She’s of my favorite runners, reminds me of Matt Carpenter (and Killian too!) with her range of distances. Thanks again!

  3. REAL.

    My thoughts on this matter are that Mathys was given a warning, not a doping sanction or suspension. That is a big, big difference from a legal aspect. Several want to ignore this distinction. It was a reprimand, just like Kilian was reprimanded at SpeedGoat for trail cutting by the RD and stripped of his win and prize purse. As a fellow former pro, I welcome Mathys to any start line as I don’t see a cause for concern with her situation.

    1. Nicolas

      It’s almost as if commenters here had trouble making fine distinctions… Thanks for bringing some sanity to this discussion.

  4. Steve

    Claudio – thanks for your condescending tone and complete lack of sense, it’s making for a fantastic exchange. I can read perfectly well and once again ask – what has this got to do with Andy Symonds? Precisely nothing and you’re using his name as some kind of bizarre wish fulfilment that because he is happy and amateur, that those two attributes preclude people from doping? Incorrect – look at triathlon. I’m happy and amateur, I don’t dope. Maybe name me, or maybe my friend Bill or Barry or Chris next time, I like them. Actually maybe Bill does, who knows, being being happy and amateur certainly doesn’t mean people won’t.

    Also, despite the fact you’re chirping on about being a scientist, someone above has shown that use of that drug as PED is a concern. Don’t be so naive (to use the phrase you attributed towards me) that women wouldn’t try to use something that has a performing enhancing benefit for men to improve their own performance. Therefore if someone doesn’t have a TUE it is perfectly legitimate to assume they are attempting to cheat unless the evidence shows otherwise. Even if she was trying to get pregnant, why is she just so damn special she doesn’t have to get a TUE while other female athletes do? Not happy to do the mundane elements of being a professional athlete (when it is part of your job), but happy to pick up cheques when you win. Great attitude, and apologist sentiment like yours attempts to legitimise such behaviour rather than calling it out for what is it – unacceptable and insulting towards fellow professional athletes who are trying to make money from this.

    1. Bryon Powell

      Hi all,
      For understandable reasons, this is a topic that can get folks heated. I’d suggest and hope that we can all discuss an uncomfortable, but important topic cooly and respectfully. It’s hard, but it can be done. Thanks.

      1. Steve

        Thanks Bryon. I’m not going to be pushed around by someone like Claudio making non-sensical comments and suggesting I can’t read, but understand that if it goes outside your editorial or community standards it will be deleted. Your house, your rules.

        1. SageCanaday

          Hi Steve,
          Really appreciate your comments and support.

          I’m also not pleased that Claudio suggested I wrote (or he thought I implied something) that I clearly did not write about!

          1. Steve


            No problem and thanks for coming here to discuss the issue. There does seem to be ‘communication difficulties’ with Claudio (or whatever his name is). It is truly a wicked problem but discussions are required to find solutions.

            Is there a union or similar for runners? Having a single public voice on this issue for all members could potentially be powerful in lobbying for change or tightening up of rules.

  5. Steve

    REAL. – thanks for providing this information. I agree that on the surface it wouldn’t make sense for a woman to use it, but that doesn’t mean people wouldn’t try to use it. The big issue for me (and I understand based on your comment re being an ex pro that you would be happy to see her on the start line) is why did she think herself beyond the requirement to get a TUE? This type of behaviour is the thin end of the wedge and starts everyone on a slippery slope.

    1. Nicolas

      Do you actually know that “she [did] think herself beyond the requirement to get a TUE”? She made a mistake, omitting to check. That can happen. It’s a mistake, a real one, for which she was sanctioned. Don’t judge her intentions when you don’t know them.

      1. Steve

        I really struggle to understand why people have such difficulty in understanding this so I’ll just spell it out step by step for the avoidance of doubt.

        1) Mathys makes the decision, alone or in agreement with her coach/federation/support team (delete as appropriate) to take a medication containing a prohibited substance that requires a TUE.
        2) Mathys is subject to doping regulation and therefore has an obligation to obtain a TUE or run the risk of failing a test.
        3) Mathys has no locus in deciding whether there are performing enhancing benefits for women of clomiphene. It’s not a discussion, it is listed and clear. She doesn’t get to choose.
        4) Mathys fails a test because she did not obtain a TUE – proof that aspects of WADA’s protocol work well.
        5) Why did she not obtain a TUE? Potential options include: ignorance, arrogance, foolishness or something more sinister. Regardless, none of these are an excuse because it is her job to get a TUE if she wants to take the medication and not run the risk of raising suspicion that she is using it for performance enhancement.
        5) Mathys receives a warning, because of the mitigating circumstances around her use of clomiphene e.g. she was actually trying to get pregnant and there don’t seem to be performance enhancing benefits for women.
        6) We still haven’t got to the bottom of why she didn’t get a TUE for perfectly legitimate use of clomiphene. Instead of using this as an opportunity (at the the time and again now it has come back to light) to get female athletes, coaches of female athletes, athletics federations, race organisers etc talking about this problem, she says nothing, bathing in the self-righteousness of ‘I was trying to get pregnant therefore I did nothing wrong’. This is fundamentally incorrect. She did do something wrong as she didn’t get a TUE, hence her warning.
        7) Do you really think that if Mathys approached any website (including IRunFar) and said she wanted to talk about this they wouldn’t do it? We’re not talking Tiger Woods/Lance Armstrong style confessional here. We’re talking about education, improvement of opportunities for female athletes starting families, better federation support for athletes.
        8) Any athlete that fails a test for something they should have a TUE for should be treated with suspicion as this is how dopers succeed. They experiment, they cycle drugs, they use new products to market, they attempt to circumvent existing legislation.
        9) If all athletes went to the trouble to obtain TUEs and allow WADA to hold up these applications to scrutiny, they would build up a stronger and stronger body of evidence about who might be trying to play the system. This includes female athletes trying to get pregnant. This is the price of admission for elite sport subject to testing. If you don’t like that, go run in the mountains on your own or with your friends and smell flowers. But if you want to show up to race, you have to play by all the rules, not just the ones that are convenient for you.

        1. REAL.


          1) You are incorrect here. No reason to discuss with a coach/federation/support team. The women I coach have menstrual issues, don’t have periods, experiment off/on with birth control, are anemic, want to time pregnancy, all personal decisions, so Mathys wanting to try to get pregnant is her own personal decision. Even on the Men’s side, when I was pro, I never spoke to anyone about my supplementation of iron and NSAIDs and Whey Protein.

          2) Correct, but she probably didn’t check. Remember, trail running is not track and field. It is not an Olympic sport, thus there is no WADA tracking of an athlete, etc. Athletes are not making millions/year, the sport is barely professional. When I last ran BUFF Epic, a handful of Spaniards were taking pumps of inhalers right before the start, some of them even expired! Go to any Euro race and see the international elites chugging 5hr Energy bottles, etc. Any advantage they can get because there is no testing, etc.

          3) See point 2

          4) Yes, but probably didn’t bother to research if it needed a TUE. To be fair, I never researched anything either.

          5) Correct.

          6) Once again, no performance benefit for women, she probably didn’t care.

          7) She’ll probably be open to discuss, but you would have to be open to listen.

          8) Quite the pessimist.

          9) Agree, but understand the sport we are talking about. It is not priority at the moment and will be in 2021 with the IAAF Mountain Trail Championships.

          1. Steve

            REAL –

            In 1) I suggested she could have made this decision alone, in which case it all falls at her door. As I raised in my original point days ago and in 6), this may indicate the system is biased against female athletes as there is not sufficient education and awareness to realise the risk they may be running in this situation.

            A read-through your response to my points suggests overall you think my points are correct, so I’m confused what you’re arguing with me about. And yes in this situation I am a pessimist – have you watched the documentary Icarus?

            You seem to be suggesting that not caring or not checking about these things is okay (or perhaps forgivable) – there’s parts of my job I don’t enjoy but still do, a story repeated by millions all over the world every day.

            Finally – I’m perfectly willing to listen to Mathys’s side of the story. Maybe we could also hear from her team mates who lost their awards as a result of her error and see if they feel like I do? That would provide some balance.

            So over to you Bryon and Meghan – are you willing to explain to your readers that you will make an exception to your normal policy to look into this and let Mathys put over her side of the story?

            1. Meghan Hicks


              Since you’re asking us directly, the answer is no, at least not now or in the near future, will we seek to speak with Maude Mathys or provide a platform for her side of the story.

              In the immediate time frame, we’re in the middle of a 14-day period of time working huge days to cover two races live. Our nearest-term priority is telling the stories of these races.

              In the slightly longer time frame, we wouldn’t seek to speak with Mathys either. Mathys’s case falls under our disclosure policy. A negative judgement was made about her by a governing body, and our policy is to disclose those judgements and to minimize our coverage of those who’ve received them on iRunFar.

              As I commented elsewhere in the last couple days, in a much longer time frame, we are not immalleable to changes to our editorial policies. However, most of our important policies have come as a result of close consideration as well as seeking advice from our greater iRunFar team. Any change to our doping and athlete coverage policy, including deciding to speak with someone who’s received a negative judgement, would come after a larger, more careful consideration that takes time.

              Thanks for reading.

            2. Steve

              Meghan, thanks for taking the time to respond. This will be my second last message to this thread and to the website in general – you might be glad about this :-)

              The people who have commenting on this thread are (if they are multiple people) are trolls as they’re just cherrypicking things to kick up a fuss about and not actually engaging in a discussion. Both Sage and I have taken the time to write out reasoned responses at length and it’s just been a waste of time with how Claudio, Nicolas and Stefan are responding.

              I wonder if rather than seeing speaking to Mathys as giving her a platform it could be part of a larger piece considering how the running community in general and iRunFar specifically should/could/will respond to these types of issues in the future. Give it a few weeks and Mathys will win another race as she’s clearly in a purple patch just now and the issue will raise its ugly head again.


            3. Meghan Hicks


              I’m not glad to see you go, and I hope you’ll reconsider! As I’ve said several times here and on other articles on the website in the last week or so, we so need civil and constructive engagement on issues like this in places like this website, approaches toward these conversations like yours. I have seen the good effects of these conversations ripple out into many places in our community and therefore believe in their importance and power.

              Indeed, if we were to engage with Mathys’s story in the future, it would be for investigation and discussion of the doping issue in a larger and more-full-spectrum way. However, like I said, it’s something we’ll take time to consider and approach.

              Thanks for the indirect feedback (in another comment you make to this article) about the anonymous-commenting that’s part of the website. We’ve used multiple commenting systems over the years, including ones that allow anonymous commenting and ones that require registration/identification. Both have plusses and minuses, and we may do it differently again in the future.

              Thanks for reading.

          2. Claudio

            Well said REAL.
            Just a final note (point 7): based on their policy, irunfar is not talking to Maude Mathys. No post-race interview, for instance. Only basic coverage.

            1. Steve

              Claudio – REAL agreed with almost everything I said (except point 1 where I said she alone could have made the decision) and just made excuses on the points where Mathys could be challenged… And yet ‘well said’? No love for me too?

            2. Steve

              Nicolas – he did not what? He did not agree with me, he did not make excuses? Please help me by unpacking your criticism of my post.

            3. Claudio

              Haha, yes Steve, I appreciate how you’re developing your arguments at this point.
              We all are for clean sport.
              Now, on a final note, answer this question:
              1) We have this archer who takes erythropoietin for therapeutic reasons.
              2) Well, the guy forgets to obtain an exemption.
              3) He is checked therefore gets a warning (not ban) from his federation (Archery is an Olympic sport, therefore WADA list applies).
              Would you agree erythropoietin does nothing to enhance the performance in Archery?
              It is important that we also agree on this final point, because in the end you have these situations of public shaming based on suspects.

            4. Steve

              Sorry Nicolas but clarity in these discussions is vital. You’re equivocating and not making clear arguments.

              Your athlete isn’t taking EPO for therapeutic reasons if he doesn’t have a TUE. He’s taking a known performance enhancing substance outwith regulations. He deserves any punishment coming to him. If it could be ‘proven’ that the EPO doesn’t improve archery performance and he needs it for day to day life then a warning would probably be sufficient but of course it would be public record.

              This winds us all the way back round to the athlete disrespecting their competition and their obligations. Mathys got the right punishment but she clearly didn’t care about her competition or regulations as she didn’t have a TUE, something that should repeatedly be brought up as the good people here are doing.

  6. CLF

    Bryon – minor correction for the record, but it appears Kilian has the 6th (not 5th) best PPM time in history:

    Sunday, August 22nd, 1993
    1 1/37 MATT CARPENTER 29 COLORADO SPGS CO 2:01:06 1:15:33 3:16:39

    Sunday, August 20th, 1995
    1 1/76 RICARDO MEJIA 32 MEXICO DF MEX 2:05:04 1:16:28 3:21:32
    2 1/30 MARTIN RODRIGUEZ 29 MEXICO DF MEX 2:04:51 1:21:37 3:26:28

    Sunday, August 23rd, 1992
    1 1/33 RICARDO MEJIA 29 MEXICO DF MEX 2:08:05 1:16:20 3:24:25

    Sunday, August 9th, 1981
    1 1/101 AL WAQUIE 30 JEMEZ PUEBLO NM 2:05:46 1:20:31 3:26:17

  7. Lorenzo

    First of all I’d like to congratulate you for your PPM race and say that I admire your professionalism and honesty to the sport, your competitors and the fans of MUT.
    I have read with interest your posts. I agree with you on many points (eg cheaters who use PED should be “punished” more than what they are) however, every case should be thoroughly analyzed as mentioned by Claudio. I don’t think that it is fair to have those claims on Maude in every single post where she is mentioned like for someone who was convicted for using PED on purpose to gain an advantage over the rest of the competition. I agree with you that as a professional she should know the rules and follow them, which she did not. But first it was not intentional and second she did get punished for that. For the former reason (it was not intentional + that specific drug does not provide any advantage to a female athlete) justifies not to bring this incident in all the posts, unlike for other real dopers who cheated intentionally.
    I have a question for you. In many of your posts you mention that cheaters are those that use drugs, but also those that cut switchbacks or take supplies outside of aid stations if it is forbidden if the race rules. Does that mean that just like you think Irunfar is right to mention that Maude had a failed drug test they should also mention that Kílian cut switchback at Speedgoat 2012 and was punished since it was forbidden as per the race rules? Was he a cheater in your books? Obviously he did not “cheat” intentionally as he did not know the rules… but like Maude as a professional he should’ve known the rules, right? My opinion is that both cases are similar, both did not follow the rules but it was not intentional and they got punished. Irunfar should either start mentioning in every post on Kilian that he cut switchbacks at Speedgoat 2012 and was punished (no prize money and no record) or stop mentioning Maude’s case…
    I’d be happy to hear your thoughts on that.

    1. Lightning

      This should be simple. If you are trusting WADA as the authority that enforces PED rules for the sport, you should also defer to their judgment when they give a warning rather than a ban. I agree with those that think it is ridiculous to place a scarlet letter on a runner for this issue.

    2. SageCanaday

      First of all I’d like to clarify that I am commenting in general statements for #cleansport. There are multiple cases I can cite and reference when it comes to actual infractions in mountain-ultra-trail running and PED positives or sanctions or warnings. So I’m not talking about Maude’s case specifically in any of these comments (I don’t know why you [or Claudio for that matter] mistakenly think that – and again i’ve not mentioned clomifene as I don’t know much about it… – although again I keep mentioning that as an elite sponsored runner it is actually not that hard to follow WADA rules. People always ask me, “where do you draw the line with PEDs?” and I simply say WADA code. I take drugs like caffeine (coffee) and alcohol (mostly beer) all lthe time. But if I had to take a strong prescription drug that needed a TUE, then I’d apply for a TUE (I don’t have one by the way). This is pretty basic knowledge and procedure in the pro athlete world.

      I agree that “each case should be taken individually”. Context and circumstances matter. Penalties or warnings or sanctions take that into account often. i.e. 2 years for EPO. Only several months for other things though (look at Mamu’s case). Note that almost all elite athletes that trip positive PED tests will plead innocence or ignorance though…again regardless of the case.

      Taking PEDs and “cutting switchbacks”(while similar and something I use as a comparison) are obviously not the same thing though so I’d say your logic is off. Yes, I also use the comparison that it is like “someone stealing money from your office desk at work”. If someone stole a bunch of money at a work office they’d probably go to jail though! Yes, the principle is the same (honor the game, the course, and your fellow competitors), but the punishments are not. The rules and laws that govern society and our activities in sport and business all differ obviously. Analogies and metaphors merely can teach a similar lesson where parallels can be drawn, but aren’t a direct cause and effect that will match each other directly. As you mentioned initially “every case should be thoroughly analyzed.” But now you are trying to compare two slightly different things with an exact same type of punishment? Just like taking a PED like THC and taking EPO are a little bit different (And would yield a very different penalty!)! Back in 2012 when Kilian first came to Speedgoat for a “US SkyRunning Race” there is very good reason to think that he honestly didn’t know that one couldn’t cut switchbacks. In many European SkyRunning style races you can pick a line and avoid switchbacks and there are no rules against it. He lost his prize money and result/podium (but wasn’t totally DQed from the SkyRunning series points) I believe. That was a tricky situation that the RD Karl was put into. Much like the case at Hardrock last summer….do you DQ a runner for taking a sip of water outside of an aid station or do you just give them a 60-min time penalty? What about a 20-min time penalty instead? I don’t know the full details there….

      There are people that cheat all the time in road marathons by trying to cut the course and they are definitely frowned upon. People trying to qualify for Boston or get top 10 in their age group. Some are investigated. Some are ridiculed online. Certain private races can prevent certain people they don’t want in their races all the time as well. Certain media outlets can also provide different perspectives on the same news and facts depending on their writing style, policies and/or politics. iRunFar can choose whatever policy they see fit (we are posting on their website). I think iRunFar is doing a great job for providing this outlet and I greatly respect their work. We are all biased. What is your bias again?

      And I have to ask though: are you not “Claudio” or “Nicolas”? I do think maybe we should require people to register and post under their full real name on here. That’s been an issue on the LetsRun.com forums for years.

      1. Lorenz

        Thank you for answering my post and questions, very much appreciated. And apologies for not giving some background on me (I thought you could not care less ). I am not Claudio nor Nicolas. My family name is Lehr, I have no bias at all, other than just loving sports (running, skiing, tennis, etc…) and following lots of athletes, that I respect and admire, and their performances, eg., on strava (you, Kilian, Max, Joe, Stian, Rémi, Jim, Mocko, Seth Demoor, Ben Parkes, etc…) or watch youtube running videos (yours, Gingerrunner, Zach Levet, Seth, Mocko, Ben, Kilian, Kofuzi, Jami’s, runningwarehouse, Salomon TV, Irunfar, Ibelieveintherun, etc…). Unfortunately for me I cannot run much more anymore because of an herniated disc that causes me sciatica and has been a pain the “a**” (pun intended ) for the last 3 years, but I still try every 2-3 months to see where I am at (still a long way to go). Anyway, I can still hike up & down mountains, cycle and go to the gym. I never competed other than in local races for fun with friends and colleagues, also mainly to enjoy after race drinks and dinners. I am not a natural for endurance sports, quite the opposite in fact, but (used to) love my running with friends in the Jura, Salève or the Alps… I am Swiss, but before you think that’s why I made such comments about Maude, let me tell you that I did not know much about her, until her recent summer performances including SZ and more recently at PPM. I have since, and because of the numerous call-outs in Irunfar comment sections, got to know about her positive drug test story, and therefore read more about it. I understand what Claudio means by it is dangerous and may have damageable impacts on some of those athletes. Because now it casts doubts on Maude’s recent performances. At least for me it does but I agree, it is my interpretation/feeling. But I bet lots of the readers get the same interpretation. Maybe that’s where I may be biased (or have been biased by these call-outs), because I will now always have a doubts whether her recent incredible performances are due to hard work, perseverance and resilience or because she is using “something”. The fact that Irunfar constantly mentions this incident makes me think that perhaps they know more about her case and her in general. That they may have insights in the sport that we, amateurs, do not have. Likewise, when you comment: “The pull of gaining social media followers and having people cheer from you (Aside from sponsor support, prize money, travel perks) may be the strongest incentive.” makes me think about those youtubers that I follow who have had great success in recent races. Intended or not, you cast doubts to the reader about those guys too. I know it is my interpretation of what you say but still it makes me wonder… because you are in the sport with insights that we don’t, do you say this because you know things or highly suspect things? Again, my interpretation, and therefore my problem, but I am sure I am not the only one that becomes suspicious about some of those guys when reading your comments. You are a recognized and great athlete (and clean!), and, like it or not, you are an influencer in those topics. Finally, I would like to clarify my “comparison” of Maude’s and Kilian’s cases… I said those are similar cases in the sense that a) both made a mistake unintentionally b) these mistakes did not bring an advantage versus the rest of the field (though one could argue that actually Kilian cutting switchbacks gave him a certain advantage… but in that race he had a 4-min lead so I don’t believe that the end result would have been any different). That is it and for the record, I am a huge fan of Kilian that I have been following over the last 15 years! and I just used this switchback example as it was mentioned in the posts and I knew about it. I fully agree that you cannot compare both cases otherwise (taking forbidden drugs and cutting switchbacks are not the same). Regarding Irunfar, again I fully agree with you, they can have the rules/policy they want and they indeed do a fantastic job (Thanks a lot Irunfar by the way ). I am just uncomfortable that they quote Maude’s case along with cheaters that clearly cheated on purpose to give them an advantage over the rest of the field. But why would Maude have taken a drug that brings no advantage to her and lied about the reason she did? The drug that she took apparently is no PED for females, she said it was to get pregnant and she did get pregnant that year. Those who cheat know what they take and what they will get from it… Sorry if my post is too long and again I appreciate that you replied. As said, I admire your accomplishments and as well as those of the athletes I follow. Just hope I’ll never get disappointed by anyone of them because of doping… Eventually, I think here, we all want the same thing, a clean sport without cheaters #cleansport.

      2. Nicolas

        Sage, thanks but I’m doing fine on my own. Believe it or not, but more than one person can disagree with you. Ass for anonymity, you know why it’s important. I’ve received less than decent treatment from folks who wield more power than I do in this community, I have a job and a family, so given the defensiveness that goes on around here, I’m not putting my real name on the line. Hope you understand.

        But more importantly: unbelievable—you’ve been hammering down your points all this time but are not even talking about Mathys, who is the only point of contention here. And you said in the preview that there were “convicted doper(s)” toeing the line last weekend. Now, if you’re not even talking about Mathys and there is, as we know, no other convicted dopers (she is not even one, technically), then why in the world are you jumping into this conversation. We’re discussing the harshness of the treatment of Mathys. Period. Anything else is irrelevant for present purposes.

        1. SageCanaday

          Again you are still seemingly still obsessed with my pre-race comment from last week it appears…
          so it goes…

          I’m simply here for the general PED discussion (Which I think is very important for #cleansport) and upholding logical discussion about this topic…as well as integrity, honesty and transparency in the sport I love. I’m constantly thinking of ways to ensure that I have a livelihood still – and that mountain-ultra-trail running doesn’t become like cycling where people say/said “to be a top pro you have to dope…everyone in the top podium spots is doping” and then they somehow justify it or something crazy.

          Obviously I’m very biased because my career is on the line here….this is my full time job. I have a lot of skin in the game. I also have the courage to post under my real name and take criticisms all the time for standing up for what I believe in. I’m not sure what you believe in, but it appears people like you, “Lorenz”, and “Claudio” all are quite sensitive (IMO) and passionate about this topic (as am I).

          I’m interested in how people perceive doping in the sport (it appears many many people are misinformed and totally naive IMO). I’m interested in talking about the details, the facts, and the rules. I’m interested in science. The nuances in semantics and other details that change people’s perception of what is “right” and what is “wrong.”…and who deserves (or doesn’t deserve) what penalty. I have a bit of experience in the sport as a sponsored pro, I’ve raced behind convicted dopers, I’ve been cheated out of positions that I worked hard to earn. I know how QUARTZ/ITRA/IAAF is doing a lot of things and I can comment on actual tests and science that have been performed for making podiums in these types of races. And mainly I’m here to support iRunFar and their policies (and WADA rules for that matter) because I believe they do a lot of excellent work to promote the sport….and to promote #cleansport …Including letting us post ad nauseam on here about what I think are very important issues that I think haven’t been talked about enough.

          “The credit belongs to the man [or woman] who is actually in the arena…”

          1. Nicolas

            WE. HAVE. HEARD. YOU. But then don’t be surprised when people think you’re talking about Mathys in a thread that’s about… Mathys, or ask you for clarification when you raise suspicions but in fact it’s not clear who you’re talking about. Again, we’ve heard you, many, many times. If you want to keep making your important points, fine, but don’t keep yelling at clouds when people are trying to have a focused conversation.

          2. Claudio

            The woman in the arena is Maude Mathys in this case, the discussion is not about you. And remember, “there is no effort without error” [quoted from the same speech].

            1. Nicolas

              Yes, Sage, somehow you manage to make this a conversation about you, basically all the time. We appreciate your experience but the world doesn’t revolve around you. And that’s fine, it doesn’t revolve around me either! :-D So for once, you can step back and chill out.

          3. Nicolas

            And no, I’m not obsessed. But if you want to be listened to and taken seriously, you have to take things seriously, be coherent and straightforward. Your comments carry weight and respectability because they come from a public, vocal figure like you. Don’t underestimate the significance of what you write.

            1. SageCanaday

              This will be my last comment on this thread. You and Claudio (if you are in fact two different people) seem to post a lot on here and seem be quite passionate about this whole topic.

              But Why? What is your bias? Everyone knows why I’m on here commenting all the time and ranting about about PEDs and #cleansport in this niche sport that is MUT Running.

              Final note: I believe what I wrote in my comments (while often long winded) is quite coherent and straightforward. I am usually very careful with what I write online (I have to be). I’d like to also think that I state facts and operate very logically most of the time. I’m also a big science and numbers (and WADA rules) type of guy.

              In my opinion both you and Claudio have misunderstood a lot of what I’ve written…and often take it out of context. The good thing about the internet is this stuff stays up forever.

              I wish you all the best,

            2. Steve

              Sage, as I have put in my message above to Meghan these guys are trolls and I think your point re registering a username could be helpful. However, this might cut down on the interaction levels on the comments section, who knows. I for one am done with it now and won’t post any comments to any story in the future if this is the level we’re operating at.

              Thanks for taking the time to write out reasoned arguments and I’m sorry that Claudio, Nicolas and Stefan (if they are more than one person) have wasted your time by positing incoherent arguments, purposefully misconstruing what you’ve said and ignoring other bits entirely.

              Keep up the good fight!

  8. AT

    On a lighter note..

    All this talk of UTMB reminds me of when I was traveling between Italy and Amsterdam 2 years ago, during UTMB weekend..I was so hype over following the event (thanks IrunFar), that I got carried away in the moment and decided a 2 shot espresso was ideal later in the evening before our train ride..it was not..

    “Everybody love Everybody” -Jackie Moon

  9. CLF

    There was some great racing and great performances out there on Sunday – congrats to all who ran and put it all on the line!

    But sadly, down here in the cheap seats we have 51 comments (so far and counting) and basically none discussing those performances – obsessing instead on a fertility medication. Really???

    How about this for starters:
    ***Kilian was “stalking” the record ascent pace roughly only 2-3 min off through 11ish miles, which could have put him in the driver’s seat for the (full) record had he maintained it to the summit (with a subsequent record descent). But then he lost an additional 6 min to pace in those last 2-2.5 miles to the summit, costing him any chance for record.
    ***Maude destroyed the full record, entirely via an ascent that was 13ish min better than the record full course summit split. However, her ascent was still nearly 5 minutes off the record ascent-only time set by Kim Dobson a few years back.

    Perhaps a discussion around those and other performances might be more interesting. Carry on.

    1. Steve


      Yes really. Down in the cheap seats we’ve got apologists for recipients of PED reprimands and some people challenging them. Unfortunately that’ll be what happens when the second person you mentioned has something of a chequered history.

Post Your Thoughts