I would care more about improvements from baselines if I was confident that there was an accurate way to measure the baseline, and then the improvement. Otherwise it is biased cherry-picking. "O2-vector doping with high-responders" also raises the question, how you determined that it was a high response to O2-vector doping. The "dirty" North Africans don't explain why Spain, fully loaded with rocket fuel, ran so poorly, compared to other non-African countries, and to the 1980s reference. And finally, even strong anecdotal evidence is limited in value.
Anecdotal evidence
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
See also: Confirmation bias and Cherry picking (fallacy)
Anecdotal evidence is evidence from anecdotes, i.e., evidence collected in a casual or informal manner and relying heavily or entirely on personal testimony. When compared to other types of evidence, anecdotal evidence is generally regarded as limited in value due to a number of potential weaknesses ...
Rocket Fuel Rick wrote:
You can go ahead and rationalize this all you want (imagine that). However, this is strong anecdotal evidence of the power of O2-vector doping with high-responders in a country that has had about as strong as a doping culture as you'll find anywhere else in the world.