You’re right. You should be embarrassed. You did not bother to read through the assumptions or claims made by the econometricians, instead you took what was a headline article and took it at face value.
They did not estimate what the human limits were in the 100m - they estimated what the record could be in the very near future. This is explicitly stated in the paper and implied in the article. So basically all the assumptions you have listed sarcastically are accounted for. And as a maths major rainy, you should know better than to take stats literally - it is not physics, it does not purport to be deterministic. If your degree is the paper it’s printed on why don’t you critique their methods and give us something interesting to discuss rather than making “horribly stupid” generalisations which add absolutely no value to the board.
You make a good point. I will read through the paper (http://center.uvt.nl/pub/dp2009.html ), but what about:
Two econometricians from Tilburg University in the Netherlands, Professor of Statistics John Einmahl and former student Sander Smeets, say they have calculated the ultimate records for the 100-meter sprint.