Sure. Steroids were long used by male sprinters, and fielders. I have never expressed doubts about steroids for men in these non-distance running events. But male distance runners generally don't believe in the performance enhancement effect of steroids. According to Salazar, "Other than blood doping, ..., there were not any prohibited practices or doping methods that were clearly beneficial for distance runners,"
I always read your personal insults as self-projection -- it makes so much more sense that way. It's also a sign that you are smart enough to know you lack merit, but not smart enough to admit it, so you need to resort to insults. But you've got it all wrong -- it is the soles of the new shoes that are unbelievably thick.
The obvious point that escapes your feeble mental grasp is that in my all-time performance analysis, like the anonymous survey, it doesn't really matter who doped, because, contrary to your repeated suggestions, I don't attempt to make any individual performance enhancement assessments. My only real observation then was that non-African men worldwide, with a few marginal exceptions, were not faster than Coe/Ovett/Jones/Lopes in the events ranging from 1500m to the marathon, for nearly three decades, before the new thick soled carbon fiber plated shoes. And even then, my conclusion was not a conclusion, but a question: "if doping was so signficant, and so widespread, in the EPO-era, then why were there so few non-Africans running faster, and then only by so little?"