In the study of Conconi, that really was commissioned by the Italian Olympic Committee (remember at that time then self-transfusion was legal), there were also top athletes : Antibo, Damilano, Emma Scaunich, Magnani (current head coach of Italy), Scartezzini.
For some of them (Scartezzini) the practice worked very well. For some other, absolutely not.
Maurizio Damilano used this system only one time, before European Championships 1982. He won OG in Moscow without any intervention on his blood, but in 1982 he faced the WORST competition of his life. Consequently, never used again the self-transfusion, and won WCh 1987 (and improved the WR of 30 km in 1992) without any "aid".
Antibo ran 27'39" in 1984 and was 4th in OG. He used the self-transfusion (as the twins Antonio and Piero Selvaggio) till when it was legal (1985). After this, he only used training in altitude (Sestriere was his Kingdom), and improved dramatically. The Antino 1990, totally clean, could run under 27', in a competition like sometimes we can see today.
Emma Scaunich lived in Ferrara. She was one of the main "tests" of Conconi. The reality is that NOTHING changed in her performances before and after the self-transfusion.
On the other side, we had in Italy athletes refusing the protocol of CONI (Olympic Committee), suche as Stefano Mei, Francesco Panetta and Gelindo Bordin. Their results, totally clean, are under the eyes of evrybody.
Conconi used this method with swimmers, too.
In 1984, one of the 3 best swimmers for 200m mix was the Italian Frenceschi. Italian Ol. Committee had big hopes for a medal with him. He was under the program of Conconi, regarding the manipulation of blood. Franceschi not only didn't win any medal, but practically never was able, after the transfusion, to achieve performances near the previous level.
I repat again : it's clear that, taking EPO, there is an increase in the ability to transport oxygen. But for a better performance in endurance (especially in LONG distances) we need to see many other factors, and the main remains the blood viscosity. Athletes increasing of 25% their total blood volume using only training are able to maintain a very low viscosity (this is the real difference from a top champion and a good runner), and at the same time can increase their transport of oxygen because they have more blood.
Another important thing : living and training in a situation of hypoxia can increase the ability to extract oxygen from the atmosphere. This is a kind of improvement we can't achieve with EPO or any other blood manipulation.
At the end of every discussion, I can say I know many WR holder are completely clean, while many athletes of high-medium level use doping, so there is no scientific demonstration that EPO can improve any performance of top level in the best athletes.
Till when some research, speaking about "training", is not generic, but can detail exactly what the training is, every research is BS. I repeat this hundred times : for really understanding the advantages of blood doping, we need to know HOW A RIGHT AND TOUGH TRAINING WORKS. Doctors look at what they know only (to increase blood values), coaches look at the way for improving the performances of the athletes.
At least, JK has reason : the use of doping created wrong ideas about training. With correct methodology (and with doping the methoidology never is correct, because a part of the changes that training can provoke are in charge of doping) athletes can reach results better than using doping. On the other side, with doping can reach top results (but not their best possibilities) in shorter time. Doping is a shortcut, but doesn't allow athletes of endurance to go faster, looking at a full career.