[wging]

Not really. EPO testing is now possible; it wasn't in the 1990s. That's why we saw dramatic increases in performance on the track in the 1990s.

The real reason is more financial: see the graph of prize money referenced in the article, and also take a look at the current state of track 10,000m racing. More top talent is attracted to the marathon, away from the longer track races, than before.

[nl]

It's true that record breaking has switch mostly from the track to the Marathon - probably because of financial reasons. But speeds haven't really slowed down (like they have in cycling).

Cycling has a biological passport which (at worst) limits how much a doper can improve their blood chemistry. Athletics doesn't have that, and doing point checks isn't as effective as looking at changes.

[wging]

I don't deny that doping still goes on, but people are forced to resort to less effective means than they used to. Take the example of Rashid Ramzi--it is likely that he was not the only doper, just a more aggressive one. Why was he caught when others were not?

> speeds haven't really slowed down

This isn't wholly true. Have you seen a 3:26.00 1500m, a 7:20 3000m, or a sub-12:40 5000m lately?

It's also untrue that athletics doesn't have a biological passport system. There are bans being handed out now for passport violations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natallia_Kareiva

[Ndiku]

We saw dramatic increases in performances on the track in the 90's because that's when the African training camps were formed. Instead of one Henry Rono suddenly there were 100. Though I wouldn't deny EPO use was rampant, times didn't slow down either once the EPO tests came out, so I think its effect was exaggerated.