Actually, I don't say that. WADA and other antidoping experts say that. Of course, if the drug wasn't having an effect on sport there wouldn't have been a need to ban it and introduce a test for it - and nor would so many athletes in different sports continue use it today, despite the risks of being caught. If antidoping efforts were completely ineffectual we would see no difference in performances from the 90's to the years that followed the introduction of the test. But we do, which suggests the pre-testing era benefited from the use of the drug. El G's and Komen's records remain untouchable more than 20 years later.
You are wrong on both counts.
Neither WADA nor anti-doping experts say anything about EPO's effect on sub-4:50 2000m performances.
When creating the banned list, WADA only considers "potential" to enhance performance, neither showing, nor requiring, any benefit.
Anti-doping experts often say the opposite -- that their findings cannot be projected onto elite performances.
And neither suggest that the potential benefits from EPO are exclusive, and could not be replicated, or even exceeded, by legal means.
You are also wrong again: even in the case of no performance benefit, there would be a need for WADA to ban it for health reasons.
And this thread isn't about general effect on any athlete in any sport, but specifically about El Guerrouj and EPO and his 2000m performance in the sport of athletics. Even more specifically, you were speaking about his last 2 laps.
In this instance we (including everyone of "the vast majority of the athletics community and anti-doping experts") lack two key pieces of information:
- Is EPO powerful for elite athletes, when compared to legal methods?
- Did El Guerrouj take EPO?
Since you always twist what is being said to suit your fatuous arguments, I did not claim that WADA specifically said El G's performances (or anyone else's, for that matter) were doped. They never make claims about individual athletes except as findings from tests.
But they and other antidoping experts consider EPO to be a powerful performance enhancing drug - not that it only has the "potential" to be so. Only a religiously fanatical doping denier like yourself refuses to see it. Every thread has its flat earther and that is the role you always play when the subject of doping arises. Your failure to grasp the topography of the issue is your outstanding feature.
You still haven't explained how he could be taking in more oxygen but breathing less.