Clerk, your post has many questions, and I want to answer to any of them.
Your reasonings about physiology are well known, as part of the "official" physiology. I don't need to read again something I know very well : the fact is that I don't believe in the conclusions, because I have too many REAL data, coming from training of top Champions, contradicting them.
The data I have are REAL. The explanations I try to give are only conjectures, the fact is that, using the "official" conjectures, it's not possible to justify the performances of many athletes connected with their blood data. For this reason, it's clear there is something different from the "official" explanation of physiologist, when we go to examinate training, values and performances of top runners, I repeat, born, living and training in altitude.
I'm not sure my attempts to explain what happens in the body of these athletes with their training arrives to right conclusions : however, official science NEVER tried to investigate this fact, analyzing one clear fact : the effect of training on their physiology.
In ALL the researches of physiologists, including the experts of antidoping, NEVER there is a real interest for the effects of training.
What is TRAINING for these scientists, who are pharmacologists, biologist, biochemicals, but don't know anything about training ? Do you think somebody of them can know the real training of top athletes ? Which is their idea of training when they general speak about "well trained athletes" ?
For having a REAL SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH, that it's possible to approve in scientific way, we need to detail ANALYTICAL TYPE OF TRAINING, that means :
a) How many sessions per day and per week
b) How much continuity
c) How much total volume
d) How much maximal volume in a single session
e) The speed of every run
f) The intensity of intervals
g) The recovery times between every interval in the same session
h) The frequency of sessions of intensity
i) The general recovery among sessions, connected with the global load of every session
l) The periodization
m) The place of training (not only altitude, but surfaces, profile of the courses, type of tracks, etc...)
n) The organization of their life
o) The training modulation
p) The frequency of competitions
We can still find some other point regarding TRAINING, METHODOLOGY AND IMPROVEMENT OF PERFORMANCES. However, all these points are already enough for demonstrating that, for physiologists interested in doping, THERE IS NO INTEREST AND NO IDEA OF WHAT TRAINING IS AND ABOUT ITS EFFECTS.
After this premise, that is one of the reasons because I can't follow the general idea about the effects of EPO with this very selected kind of runners,
I go to answer your questions.
1) In the world of international athletics, many times there are rumors and smoke about some athletes using drugs, and the most part of times where there is smoke there is fire too. So, we have opinions about who is clean, and who uses some doping (not necesseraly EPO).
For example, during African Championships 2002 in Tunis, my athletes running steeple (Wilson Boit Kipketer and Stephen Cherono) before their warm-up came to me telling that in the dressing room there was a doctor coming from Belgium meeting Brahim Boulami, they went in the WC, and immediately after Wilson and Stephen found a syringe.
Boulami showed a top shape, winning the competition in front of Wilson and Stephen, and after few days bettered the WR in Zurich, with a fantastic "solo". But this record never was accepted, and Boulami was banned, because he had two tests, one with blood the day before the race, and the other with urine after the record, showing he used EPO.
After that race, IAAF changing the rule for the approval of official WR in all endurance events (from 800m to Marathon), asking as condition to take both the samples (blood and urine).
So, we have well clear idea about who is clean, and who isn't.
Always we had suspicions about athletes of the East, continuing to use the systems of the old Soviet Union and East Germany. We Always had doubts about many Moroccans, many Turkies, and also many Spanish for some period.
About managements, I frankly think the best manager don't want their athletes take something illegal, because the management has only to lose. For my knowledge, the best managements have, in their contracts with the top athletes, a rule where it's written that, in case of doping, guilty athletes are thrown out from the management, and have to refund the amount they won during the period between the test and the start of the sanction.
I can say, for example, that athletes as David Rudisha, Asbel Kiprop, Wilson Kipsang, Eliud Kipchoge, Brimin Kipruto, Ezekiel Kemboi, Viviane Cheruiyot, Faith Kipyegon, Mary Keitany, Edna Kiplagat (speaking about Kenyan) are totally clean, such as in Ethiopia Kenenisa Bekele, Haile (during his best period), and athletes that use my training plan from two years only, but I had the opportunity to know well, referred to a period before training with me, such as Tsegaye Kebede, Ayele Abshero, Yenew Alamirew, Tiki Gelana, Aselefech Mergia and other female Marathon runners (Tirfi, Aberu and Shure Demise).
So, I can't say I trust everybody. But of sure I trust the most part of Countries, managers and coaches, because there is still a common denominator in these categories, that is the PASSION for running, not only for having results. Also if the economical stimulus is fundamental, this is not the only motivation, and all the managers I well know (the Italian Federico Rosa and Gianni Demadonna, the Dutch Jos Hermens, Valentijn Throuw and Gerard, the late Zane Branson before, the English Ricky Simms) have a deep passion for athletics, not only connected with the money they can earn.
2) I don't think any top athlete was fully developed in his career, speaking about African runners. It's not a fact of my athletes, or athletes with some other coach. The fact is that in Africa is practically not possible to have all the supports we can have, for example, in Oregon from Nike, or in UK from the Federation and individual choices (the case of Paula Radcliffe).
African runners have something more under point of view of talent and motivation, for part of the seasons, but face situations disturbing a correct application of training : problem of life connected with their families, lack of facilities (especially for physiotherapy), risks of the surfaces, both on the roads and on tracks, medical problems, due to a lot of diseases they frequently have in Africa and not in Europe, specifically typhus and similar, and not optimal organization of free time.
So, in my opinion it's not a problem connected with doping : I say that the best talents, if in theory could be possible to assemble together the "killer instinct" they have also in training, with the professionalism of European or American best runners, the WR could have the opportunity to reach higher levels (f.i., Asbel Kiprop under 3'25", or Geoffrey Kamworor under 58' in HM, or Ayana under 14'10" and probably 29'30" in 5000 and 10000 for women).
Personally, for example, I never was fully satisfied about the WR of my athletes. I put the real limit of Shaheen under 7'50" in steeple, and the WR of 10000 of Bekele well under 26'10" (when he bettered twice the record, in the first occasion was a little sick, in the second was not in top shape).
In any case, I think the further development could not happen using EPO. These athletes were already at a level so high, that only tough training could further develop their aerobic house
How I wrote several times, if I have a car Fiat 500 (normal athlete) I can find the system to add 20 HP with a good manipulation of the engine with a good mechanic (doctor giving EPO), but if I have the Formula One winning WCh, I need 100 top engineers working for one year for improving of, maybe, 2HP (good coach and good training). In this case, there is no more margin to any improvement.
Knowing the effects of hard and proper training in altitude (and for athletes living their with continuity), I'm pretty sure nothing can be added to the results achieved in clean way (honestly, I think in these cases EPO has negative effects more than advantages).
Where blood doping can work, also with athletes belonging to the "class of subjects" we are speaking about, is to cut the time needed for reaching a good aerobic level (maybe 80% of max level), starting from very low level.
This is the case of athletes after a long stop for injury o for different reasons, who want to recover a high level of shape in short time, in order to compete for winning some money after a too long period of rest (frequent situation in Africa, where, also if today we can find more professionalism, normally athletes take a long period of rest after winning good money).
But this is not the case of the best, who are the best because understood the rules of professionalism, having continuity in their training and never resting too long time after top performances.
3) This, instead, is another good point. Yes, I'm sure the "perceived benefit" exists and is important factor in the development of the final performances.
This is nothing else than the "placebo effect" we named many times in several posts.
There is no doubt that athletes of good international level in Kenya (mainly women) used doping. There is also no doubt the most part of them improved their PB. This situation is exactly, in my opinion, a product of the "perceived benefit" : taking doping (90% of case steroids, not EPO) they SUPPOSE possible to train more, so finally they have a jump of quality in their training in both volume and intensity.
The real fact is that they didn't try these volumes and these intensities when clean, thinking it was not possible to recover. So, their improvement is induced by training, not by EPO or steroids, but the level of their training changes because EPO or steroids.
Could these athletes be able to use the same level of volume and intensity if able to approach training with another mentality ?
The results achieved by the top in the world say "YES", simply they were not mentally strong enough for trying.
In all this situation, I'm not surprised when I discovered Kisorio positive, because he showed very fragile mentality approaching the training needed for running full Marathon (while instead was clean when running 10000m and HM). I'm, instead, very surprised by Rita Jeptoo, who was already able in 2006 to run 2:21 in a paced race (winning her first Boston, she ran the last 12.2 km faster than all the first 10 men), because she is the athlete able to train more hard I saw in my life (nothing to do with Mary Keitany and Florence Kiplagat, for example). Her logic evolution was to run also under 2:18 in 2-3 years, if in 2007 she was not restrained in her evolution by a wrong technical choice, moving from the camp in Iten (when was every day with me) to her new house in Mosoriot, with her husband as coach and without Group around. After this, she had a baby in 2009, came back in 2011 with little training, and started again to improve in 2013, when, after many family problems, left the husband concentrating totally in training.
So, for me her improvement has nothing to do with EPO, but I don't understand because she was so stupid to listen to some cheater, losing the jackpot, the face and the possibility to run again Major marathons and Olympics, with concrete possibility to win.
Final thing : give the true importance to the fact that all the athletes of top level taken for EPO or different type of doping (Boulami, Mouhrit, Saidi Sief, Sanchez, Ramzi, the Russian, the fmous Chatal Lombard also if not elite, the first taken for EPO who is the Italian Roberto Barbi, Goumri and the Maroccan marathoners) were athletes born and normally living at sea level, going only occasionally in altitude, and NEVER in high altitude (Ifrane is 1600m, while Iten is 2400 and Addis - Solulta 2600).
My thought is that EPO can give, for the aerobic system, advantages till the altitude of about 1800m (connected with training), no advantage till about 2200m, and NEGATIVE EFFECTS compared with training in altitude between 2200m and 3000m (in higher altitude, I don't think the body can have advantages, but only prioblems since the demand is too high).
But all my hypothesis must be investigated, and till now no scientists had interest, knowledge and possibility to do this kind of research with the top runners in the world.