In 1972, a group of scientists decided to investigate which was the best physiological age for using the quality of sprinters at their top.
They went to analyse the age of all the Olympic finalists of 100m from 1948 and 1972 (so, 6 in 1948 - 1952 - 1956 - 1960 - 1964 and 8 in 1968 and 1972, for a total amount of 46 subjects) and discovered that the average age of the sprinters was 21 years 8 months and some day (now I don't remember exactly the number).
So, from a STATISTIC investigation they wanted to study a PHYSIOLOGICAL situation.
The problem is that didn't know anything about athletics.
If they knew something about the athletics' history, could, for example, know that in 1972 the 3rd sprinters of US in the 4x100m was Mel Pender, already 37 years old, who for long time didn't run because was soldier in Vietnam.
And they could know that in 1964 the winner of 400m was Mike Larrabee (in 45"1), who was already 32, after failing to be selected in 1952, 1956 and 1960. He decided to have 6 months of total training, without working, and won Olympics.
The reason because the average age was under 22 years was very simple : the best sprinters were students in the US Universities, athletics was not professional but purely amatorial, and when they had finished the University their interest was not in running, but to look for a profession in order to have a salary and to start their normal life.
When athletics became professional, also sprinters and jumpers (athletes using at top level the qualities more evident in young people) became able to last for a full career, and we had winners older than 30 years like absolutely normality (without speaking about exceptions as Kim Collins, national record with 9"93 when 40 years old, or Merlene Ottey, who had her best in 100m (10"74) when 36, bettered the NR of Slovenia with 11"09 and 22"72 when 44, and was still able running in 11"82 when 52 years old. Michael Johnson won in Atlanta 200 and 400m when 29, and bettered the WR of 400m when 32. The Italian triple jumper Fabrizio Donato, NR holder with 17,60 in 2000, did his best peformance (17.73 indoor) when 35, and won Silver in European Indoor Champs 2017 with 17.32 when 41.
What do these data mean ? It means that athletics is frequently used for studies about the human body and the human characteristics, BECAUSE IS THE ONLY DISCIPLINE (together with swimming, that is athletics in the water) with precise numbers. But if there is not a deep and specific knowledge about THE SITUATIONS BEHIND THE NUMBERS, every study risk to arrive to wrong conclusions.
All the evaluations coming from the study :
(From the summarized literature, it can be estimated that elite athletes may improve performance by up to 3% with blood doping, regardless of method [29–31]. This enhancement is equivalent to, for example, seven minutes faster winning time in the 90 km cross country ski race Vasaloppet, 20–30 seconds faster time in any given 5000 m run at world class level, and four minutes faster finishing time in a marathon race)
for who works in athletics at the higher level are clearly total bullshits, because who estimated this improvement DOESN'T HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THE ATHLETIC REALITY.
If I have athletes able running the WR in steeple (7'53"63) without EVER taking a vitamin ; if I have 8 athletes who ran 10000m between 26'30" and 26'55" only eating Ugali and vegetables, sometimes chicken, and drinking milk ; if today I have, after one year of training, athletes running 58'42" - 59'06" - 59'19" in HM coming from other events or totally new, who train in the camp where there is full control about everything : if I KNOW that all these performances are CLEAN, for applying the formula of 3% I have to start from their CLEAN performances, and this means that, according to the BELIEVERS of blood doping, if I give them EPO their PB had to be 7'39" in steeple, 25'43" in 10000m and 56'57" in HM(and for Sondre 2:02 in the Marathon).
I don't say that the research is wrong or useless. I say that, if these data are transferred to professional athletes who train at their best in clean way, of course in altitude, the final estimations are totally ridiculous, and can be done only by somebody NOT KNOWING ANYTHING about the final object of the research itself.
While it's correct to have researches, for every medicine, connected with the different kinds of sicknesses, it's really ridiculous to give idiotic percentages about performances in athletics, from people who don't know what athletics is.
Must be clear that I don't forgive and not excuse doped athletes : according to me, they must be banned for life, and ALL their results (from the beginning of the career, not important if at that time were clean) must be cancelled.
But I can't accept this over evaluation of the effects of blood doping, clearly possible only if there is a total ignorance of talent, training and other factors at the base of any performance.
And, who wants to speak WITH NUMBERS about something that doesn't know, is not a scientist, but a CLOWN.