1. Weldon is so compromised on this one it's going to be hard for him to objective but i'm sure he'll try.
2. It's disconcerting to me that someone who wanted the blood values out there a few months ago now doesn't want them out there. If you actually go to the Original source - The Telegraph (not competitor's poor rewrite job of actual journalism) - you find this excerpt from this article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/athletics/11361591/Paula-Radcliffe-urges-doping-documentary-maker-to-reveal-all-about-suspicious-blood-values.htmlANow she doesn't want them revealed? There can only be one logical explanation for that change - hers is one of the values.
Let's say these were weldon's values. Weldon's a known anti doping leader who made massive improvements. He was clean.
If I were him and my values were suspicious, and I was clean, i wouldn't care. I'd still want them out there. I'd say, "Release them. The science must not be right. Let's get some really smart people - David Epstein, Ross Tucker , etc- and have them figure out how these values could be viewed as suspicious. What's wrong with the science here? Maybe i'm a genetic freak. Let's get to the bottom of this. I've always 100% believed in transparency and leading the anti doping fight and I'm not going to change now."
Yes, the morons who don't follow science would call you a doper right now (but they are doing that anyway) but if the scientists get to the bottom of it, you'd be vindicated (if you are clean). I wish this was the path she'd taken.
3. I changed the 2nd link of the OP to the Telegraph from Competitor. The OP was linking to a bad article on Compeittor which just summarized the Telegraph reporter who actually took the time to do the journalism. We don't like people who just summarize other people's work.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/athletics/11361591/Paula-Radcliffe-urges-doping-documentary-maker-to-reveal-all-about-suspicious-blood-values.htmlA