Whistleblowing has a very important place in British law, including in investigations such as these.
In this case, there's no reason to doubt the ability of the select committee to assess the credibility of the witness correctly. It says:
The identity of this person is known to us; they are well respected within the cycling community and held a senior position at Team Sky at the time of the events under investigation.
Anyway, I should imagine anyone who knows the team/management structure, and knows who was employed by Sky, during the period in question would be able to deduce who the whistleblower is, given the very specific knowledge they demonstrate in their evidence.
There is clearly enough verifiable content in the witness's evidence to establish their credibility - and remember the committee does know who it is. Given their testimony doesn't come across as much of a grievance, and is very much presented as simply clarifying matters and setting the record straight on certain points, then the select committee has obviously made the correct decision to give credence to and publish it and to use it in determining its findings...... and whilst I am also very curious to know the identity, I'm prepared to delegate making this judgment to the select committee, and for the identity to remain undisclosed to protect the individual.
