Part of transparency is also having a well-defined and public definition of "suspicious." This one seems possibly arbitrary. We know that anti-dopers run at a disadvantage. The disadvantage is that they have to be REALLY sure about a positive before it's acted on. E.g. 0.00-something false positive rate. That leaves a huge margin for samples that are subjectively suspicious yet not far out enough to be "positive." This is probably true across sports. E.g. there could be absolutely no difference here between cycling and track. A few years ago we had the leaked list of riders with "suspicious" values.

The data could be useful in discussions about possibly lowering the bar for a positive test. I've long proposed the idea of simultaneously lowering the bar for a positive while lowering the severity of a penalty. That way you don't destroy someone's career with the increased false positive rate, but you do jack up the careers of persistent dopers.

The penalty might be just be voiding a result and sitting out the next event instead of the usual suggestion of "Ban them for life!!"