About the possibility of Ronald in HM when he had the workouts I wrote, he could run under 1 hour, of course the problem could be the MENTAL adaptation.
This is not only an hypothesis : what Kejelcha did in Copenhagen is the demonstration that also for milers (don't forget he ran 3'32" 10 days before 59'14") there is the possibility to have a WIDE RANGE, of course if there is training in that direction.
Or you think Mo Farah, when ran 3'28"81, didn't use long and fast run ?
Why you don't ask Alberto how much long run, and how much fast, he always used with Mo, with Galen, and now with Sifan Hassan and with Yomif Kejelcha ?
And in all this, the level of Hct doesn't have any importance. I pointed out several times that everybody has an OPTIMAL INDIVIDUAL HCT, because this is an INDIVIDUAL parameter, and you can have athletes running the same times, one with 53 and another with 43 of Hct. And it's not true that, if the athlete with 43 uses some blood manipulation for enhancing his value to 50, after this he can run faster.
EVERYBODY HAS HIS OPTIMAL PERSONAL RANGE, and inside this range can run faster when his Hct is higher (but always inside his individual range). When he goes OVER his optimal range, his physiology is not able to use the increased ability to transport oxygen, because this creates other limiting factors, and the body goes out of balance.
Try to understand that the human machine works in a complexed way, and to look at few situations only is a big mistake.
An athlete can increase his performances when all his training can produce BALANCED advantages : if wants to look for one direction only, at first doesn't improve, and secondly becomes injured or sick in very short time.
And you continue to underrate the mental effects, and the tactical effects, on the performances.
In the explosion of athletes under 13' (not in 1990, but after 2000), the main reason was the speed of the races, that had fast pacers because there was every time the opportunity to attack the WR, with Haile or Komen before (but in those years times under 13' were not frequent), with Kenenisa later. Go to control the final results of the races producing the best performances, and you can see that always the winner was Bekele, always around 12'50", and automatically he was the best rabbit for all the other athletes. Put in your mind that running under 13' is not a performance of high level, if you do this arriving in the group, the performances doesn't have a big value.
I give you the example of the race in Saint Denis (6th July 2012) :
1- Dejen Gebremeskel in 12:46.81 PB
2- Hagos Gebriwhet in 12:47.53 PB
3- Isaiah Koech in 12:48.64 PB
4- Yanew Alamirew in 12:48.77 PB
5- Thomas Longosiwa in 12:49.04 PB
6- John Kipkoech in 12:49.50 PB
7- Tariku Bekele in 12:54.13
8- Eliud Kipchoge in 12:55.34
9- Kenenisa Bekele in 12:55.79
10- Edwin Soi in 12:55.99
11- Moses Masai in 12:59.21
Among all these athletes, the best performances of Gebremeskel before that race were 12:53.56 and 12:55.89, of Gebriwhet 12:58.99 (and after that race 12:54.70 and 12:55.73), of Isaiah Koech 12:57.63 (and the next year 12:53.19 indoor and 12:54.78), of Yanew Alamirew 13:00.46 (and after he was able running only 2 other times under 13'), of Thomas Longosiwa 12:51.95, of John Kipkoech 13:01.64 (and never ran under 13' again), while Tariku, Eliud, Kenenisa, Edwin were simply not in shape. So, do you think John Kipkoech was a top athlete ?
The best winning times in the history belong to the same athletes : Kenenisa Bekele, Daniel Komen, Haile Gebrselassie.
Do you know how many performances there are under 13' updated at today ? 346, by 97 different athletes.
Instead ALWAYS speaking of doping, maybe better if you start to change your idea about what is the talent, the real level of the performances, and start to analyze how many factors concur in a fast performance, because, every time I read something from the most part of posters, I see a lot of specific ignorance in these factors, because the focus is on doping only. Really ridiculous, and very naive.