Well, if Eliud Kipchoge is doping too and gets caught, then I imagine that could be a bit of a setback to the sport.
Cycling survived Lance Armstrong though, so I imagine Athletics would be fine as well.
If Kipchoge is doping, his best course of action is to probably just run Boston and New York next year, and then the Olympics in '24 and call it a career.
I don't think he would need to dope in order to win any of those races, because it's impossible to set any world records at Boston or New York, and the course at the Olympics in Paris is obviously not going to be fast either.
So just get out while you're still testing clean and leave your legacy intact.
I suppose it's possible for him to get below 2:01:09. But if he is doping, why risk it, just let 2:01:09 be the mark.
I see there was mention of the Bowerman Track Club (or rather Grant Fisher). I imagine it would be unfair to say that everyone on that team was doping too just because of Shelby Houlihan. In that, it would be unfair to suggest or imply that Grant Fisher or anyone else is doping just because she tested positive; in a guilt by association.
Likewise, is it also fair to hold any of them above suspicion, because they did after all have a drug cheat in their ranks?
Of course, with the NN Running Team, or with the Bowerman Track Club, both instances could be a case of one or two members of the team doping on their own in hopes of achieving individual glory. Unfortunately though, their actions and choices can taint everyone else around them.
It would be interesting to see how Nike would react if Eliud Kipchoge did get caught doping, because running is much more important to the company than cycling ever was (which is basically zero in terms of importance). Given their position of power in the sport of running, the cynic in me kind of thinks that any positive test will never been made public. No, he would just "retire."