So there isn't as much talent in the shorter distances because the times are not as fast? A circular argument if I ever heard one. Faster times can be the product of doping. Not to mention that it is exceedingly condescending to some very fine athletes - like Shaheed. You also don't get that talent at an elite level doesn't necessarily endure into later life. The athlete who ages least will be the best in masters competition. An Ed Whitlock doesn't need to have been an Olympian in his youth.
Faster times can be a result of doping. Why do you think HM runners are more likely to dope than milers?
And no it isn't disresptful to someone like Shaheed to say he is a 1 in 100k versus the the 1:10 million of an open WR holder. That just is what it is. If your talent pool is a hundred million+ people, you will find those 1 in a million talents. When you talent pool is more like 100k people, it will take a while to find those 1 in a million talents. That is simple math. The fact that one shows up in the HM (i.e. we have 2:14 marathoner who has aged well) before one shows up in the mile (i.e. when we get a 3:55 miler who has aged well) is just chance. This is all simple high school probability and stats...
I didn't say HM runners are more likely to dope than milers. Fast times at any distance - from the sprints to the marathon - can be the product of doping. Times aren't proof of talent alone. Dopers may also be talented. Talent at 60 isn't the same as it would be at 20 - at 60 it may have more to do with relative aging.