I agree that "1" is a red flag but only if it is amended to "having a coach that has previously been involved in doping" not just "doping allegations". Just because other runners, coaches etc make up unsubstantiated rumours or "allegations" about a coach doesn't mean that they should be avoided like the plague - its just that athletes going to them need to do their own due diligence to try to settle their minds about whether the rumours or "allegations" have any foundation.
"7" I disagree with fundamentally. If a coach is looking for legal advantages, they are legal advantages. I have no problem with athletes taking supplements or chemicals if they are not illegal.
"8" I don't think you can be that precise. Not everyone aged 30 is the same, and just because an athlete was only achieving 90% of their potential aged 26-29 doesn't mean that aged 30 they can't find the secret to unlocking that - it just means that they should look back to their earlier years and reflect on how much better they could have been.
"9" is also a little doubtful - yes, if you were running 12:50 for 5k once a week, every week for 52 weeks without injury then that would be unusual. But the reality is that we rarely see athletes like that, they may have multiple peaks or be able to retain that peak for longer, but even athletes that race frequently will have 6-8 week periods throughout the year allowing for some cut back.
"10" is just nonsense - races are won or lost in the last 200m, so everyone that wins must by this definition be a doper. If you are not better than your competitors in the last 200m, you won't be a winner, doping or no doping.