Had another, more relaxed read of the book chapter/paper.
Bear in mind that most graphs have basically 7 points/plots on them. Averaged values for a year is mutliple readings were taken. Data covers 1992, 1994, 1996, 1998, 2001 and 2003, which takes her through her track time to the marathon WRs
Figure 3 showing VO2 max is basically flat (~ 70 ml/kg/min) with some variations. However the write up behind this figure shows a highest value of 80, and lowest of 65. This seems a little high for test variation by the same protocol by the same group. Averaging a high and a low value for a year to make it appear flatter clearly has happened.
I'd very much like to see the pre-averaged data (Chances of that is near zero of course).
Sow whilst at first glance the paper is written to show consistent Vo2 max, which would show that blood doping wasn't going on that may well not be the case in the nitty gritty details. Blood doping first and foremost affects the Vo2 max.
Figure 4 showing the Vo2 usage at 16 kmh (9.94 mph or basically right around 6 min/mile or 2:40 marathon pace) shows a massive drop, and the later figures show she really pushed her lactate curves shifted hugely from 1992 to 1998, then remained fairly constant through to 2003 (minor variations only).
HR at given speeds shows a similar trend (but annoyingly uses a different data set as it doesn't have 2001 and 2003, but does add 2002), by about 1998 the best condition was reached and she stayed there for 2002.
All in all its a PR piece rather than a substantial science study. For it to be good science the raw data needed to be included and a whole lot less 'averaging' of a years data to massage to the desired results.
There is nothing in the way of evidence for blood doping, nor is then any evidence of cleanliness (thanks to that averaging)
Now we go into rampant speculation:
One does wonder what was behind the massive shifts in running economy. Was it truly training loads (this period covers her from 18 to 29 a period when endurance athletes do develop), or was there something other helping her efficiency.
This is where I **** into the limits of my ignorance.
What would the profile of someone who was an early adopter of something AICAR look like in terms of efficiency ? (and I would note that AICAR wasn't on the prohibited list until much later). Its a little early for Peptide type hormones.
Couple this efficiency increase (however it came about) with good old fashioned almost undetectable (at the time) autologous transfusions, and thats a plausible way for her to beat the world record. (or she could have been just that good)
end speculation portion
I don't know she doped, and really this paper doesn't nothing to show evidence either way. It comes back to preconceived notions and ideas, and our biases.
I think the whole list of red flagged names should be released along with whatever data they have. (Offscores of 167 and 170 are being talked about, that's worse than JTL level doping). We, the public, deserve to know.
Athletics has been dirty long enough, maybe they need to really try to clean their own house and start again.