Wiseman claimed he wasn't attempting to replicate Sheldrake's work but rather address the claims made by the TV program.
So what Wiseman did was create a criteria for failure that made no sense--if the dog went to th window for absolutely no reason when the owner was not coming home, the trial was considered a failure.
Wiseman is the one that said dogs have super senses so maybe hear the owner coming home well before any of the people could hear it, giving the impression of telepathy. If the dog's senses are this acute, then how on earth could Wiseman justify that the dog went to the door for "no reason"? Wiseman, with his relatively poor senses, wouldn't detect subtle sounds outside that the dog could have been responding to.
Considering this, and the fact that his data matched Sheldrake's, it seems that Wiseman used extremely flawed methodology, which if by that alone, the data should be rejected, but was instead presented as a falsification. The fact that it matched Sheldrake's work, which was pointed out, and Wiseman really won't acknowledge, is dishonest to say the least.
If you want to see arbitrary stopping when you get the results you want, I couldn't think of a better example than Wiseman's four trials.
Such dishonesty should be pointed out by parapsychologists.