Really?
Let's examine that statement, especially in light of Bolt's own event, the 100m.
The author in the linked paper suggests that human improvement has stalled since the 1980's, because that's when many records were set, and subsequent records only show trivial improvement, less and less frequently.
I agree with him mostly. Even though many of those records are PED-fueled, if they were erased, the best "clean" times you would be likely to find would be around what the best athletes of the past 10 years have been running.
As regular posters here know, I have long argued that the 100m limit is in the low-9.8's, approached a few times by any given athlete, and requiring pretty excellent conditions--MAYBE as low as 9.80 or 9.79
By that standard, and by the author's own "standards", Bolt is not nearly the only exceptional performer--both Powell and Gay are off-the-charts as well. Consider that the previous "clean" 100m record was 9.79 (Greene), and that the actual clean 100m record was 9.84 (Bailey and Surin).
Powell at 9.72 and Gay at 9.69 have both completely torched 9.84, and even 9.79.
If Bolt didn't exist, we would be marveling at Gay, having gotten down into the unheard-of 9.6's, never before thought possible.
And if neither Bolt nor Gay existed, we would be marveling at Powell, who took 0.07 off the previous questionable record of 9.79, and an unbelievable 0.12 off the probable actual clean record of 9.84.
Maybe something was lost in translation, but not all of the author's observations bear scrutiny.
People actually get PAID to study this b.s. and make junk comments about it. Wow.