You wrote "ALL" in capital letters. When we are talking about the possibility of an athlete doping I take this to mean all values over the entire career of the athlete. That is the best one can do to. Besides it is still not clear whether all of the parties you state have seen all samples over the time frame you specify- when you have referred to the Sunday Times you have talked about them having just 10 values which is not very much for an 11-year time frame.
Preisdent Lord Coe used the term "failed organization" and he was not more specific. If you look at the IAAF, there has been extortion of money from athletes to cover up drug test results with the treasurer of the organization involved and the former president apparently being aware of this. The former president and his family have been involved money laundering, corrupt sponsorship deals among other things. There has been corruption and bribery involved in the bids for major championships. The list goes on and I think you can stretch the term "failed organization" to the entire organization in this case.
Wherever these pesky investigative journalists seem to snoop in the IAAF, they find yet more cases of corruption. You have been critical of the press in this thread but if it wasn't for these pesky journalists or French police (remember that it took French police to start kicking in doors of the homes and hotels of riders to reveal the extent of doping that was going on in cycling), we would know nothing about all this.
You seem to feel satisfied that the IAAF have dealt with the doping issue satisfactorily. As you say they seemed able to detect doping all right. The problem lies in what they did about it: they used positive tests as a means of making more money via extortion. When journalists such as Seppelt started to uncover what was going on, the IAAF started banning more Russian athletes. This move looked like they were papering over the cracks. If you feel satisfied about this, then you should be asking yourself these sorts of questions: For how many years was someone like Shobukhova allowed to compete while flunking biological passport tests? How much money was she effectively cheating others out of during this time? Have there been any moves to pay this money back?
In my opinion (and I don't think that I am alone here), the regulation of anti-doping by the IAAF has been a disgrace.
Lance’s story is relevant because it was at first seen as a trial by French journalists if you go back to 1999 (which was touted by the UCI as clean start for the sport after the 1998 Festina affair). And the journalists were ridiculed by some –remember all the jokes about French police and soap and deodorant being banned in France? Eventually team mates talked. Doping is a very private and intimate practice but cycling is a sport where you have teams of a few very close nit riders sharing hotel rooms for several weeks during an event such as the Tour de France. Furthemore, because the performance of the riders in the team is crucial to the outcome of the race there will be pressure not on just an individual rider but on the whole team to dope. Thus due to the very nature of cycling you will have more people who can directly witness doping going on in other competitors if it is happening. So it is no surprise that many people did eventually start talking about Lance (especially given his behavior towards others). But even then he would still have got away with it if he did not come back in 2009.
Running in comparison is a far more individual sport, and doping, if it is happening, can take place pretty much at an individual level, and you will have far less people who will have directly witnessed it happening. Even for distance runners who have tested positive you do not hear anywhere near the same amount of allegations in the press or from competitors in the years prior to the bust.
Have other endurance athletes also produced such values only through altitude training/dehydration?
So you seem to be suggesting that it is likely there are also other issues in PR’s blood test data besides the 3 unusual/borderline values, and this is why these data are not being released to the public.