I honestly think you seem to be basing your conclusion - that everybody dopes - on the assumption that...everybody dopes.
So blood doping improves performance by 3%. Herb Elliott ran a practically solo 3:35 in 1960 on a much inferior track than even the Brits had, let alone today's Monaco. He was only 22 and surely still not in his peak (and retired soon after). 3% of 3.35 gives around a 3:28 performance blood doping. ON A 1960's TRACK!! By a 22 year old probably still not at his peak. Quite ridiculous.
Obvious that Herb Elliott was blood doping. But wait a moment. Blood doping only became widespread later in the 60's.
I honestly don't follow your logic. Because Coe ran 1:41, it would mean to suppose he ran it clean, he could have ran 1:38 blood doped, and that proves he did blood dope. I honestly don't see that logic. Yes, maybe he could have ran 1:38 blood doped. In fact I firmly believe that with EPO or blood doping, Coe, Cram, Ovett could have ran that kind of time and 3:25 1500m. I don't see what's ridiculous about that.
Peter Snell also ran what many consider the equivalent of at least a low 1:43, and surely had the potential to run 1:42 on today's Mondo tracks and with better competition to push him. That means he could have ran 1:39 or even 1:38 blood doped today. Unless you think he and Lydiard pioneered the use of blood doping in the 60s in athletics?
I mean what's your logic? 1:38 is absurd because Coe would still be the world record holder and nearly 3 seconds faster than anyone else, and we know there have been a lot of 800m blood dopers and EPO users in the years since Coe? But how we do know that somebody of Coe's talent has been blood doping or taking EPO? You assume that EVERYBODY dopes to prove that EVERYBODY dopes. You also ignore the possibility (or probability) that the introduction of EPO and doping culture in middle-distance actually prevented European talent of the level of Coe emerging (because they made the choice not to dope to compete on a level playing field).
You've criticized me for 'racism' in the past, or at least for giving the impression that I'm racist for focusing on East Africa. The fact that there is no evidence that there is and has been a major doping culture in middle-distance running in the West, aside from perhaps countries like Spain and Italy. Meanwhile, at the risk of appearing racist again, there have been two global Kenyan middle-distance medalists popped in the last 12 months, 3 of the top 21 Kenyan 800m runners from 2017 popped, 3 of the 5 Kenyan male finalists in the middle-distance events in London popped. That strongly indicates that doping is endemic in Kenyan middle-distance running, and unfortunately, that most elite Kenyan runners over the years have been dopers. The fact that Coe and Cram probably ran as fast in the 80's as Kiprop, taking into account the difference in the tracks, doesn't prove they must have been doping as well. It just means that Kiprop, and maybe the best that Kenya has to offer, are naturally about 5 or 6 seconds slower than the best Europeans. Just as the best Nigerian 1500m runners are 10 or 15 seconds slower than the best Europeans.
What age do you think Cram was when he started blood doping? And how did he do it exactly? His parents couldn't even afford to buy him a decent pair of spikes, yet look at the times he was running as a schoolboy. And if Ovett was roiding and blood transfusing before each race, why did he not have any inclination to chase WRs until Andy Norman and the promoters pressurized him to? He really only enjoyed beating the men on the track. I doubt if he would have gotten much satisfaction from that if he knew he was winning just through doping.