Tag Archives: Evidence

WHERE IS CANCER RESEARCH UK’S EVIDENCE?

(Clue: They don’t have any).

When two parties disagree about something, how do you decide which one to believe?

Is it the one who makes claims but has no evidence to support those claims, or is it the one who has evidence and is happy to share it?

Is it the one whose story constantly changes and is unsupported by anything other than hearsay, or is it the one whose story has remained unchanged from the start, who is consistent, and who is able to provide both documentary evidence and witnesses?

Establishing the truth about the creation of the Race for Life is as simple as deciding who is telling the truth in these examples. 

Is it Cancer Research UK (CRUK)?

Their current stance is that the origins of the Race for Life are unclear. This stance came about following an inquiry they claim to have had into the event’s creation. An inquiry they do not want to make public. An inquiry in which they cannot say what evidence was considered. An inquiry in which they did not contact Jim Cowan to ask him to provide evidence or contacts for witnesses. An inquiry which doesn’t appear to have been interested in gathering facts or learning the truth.

Prior to their ‘inquiry’ CRUK admitted that they have no records from the time the Race for Life was created. So what records were considered, what evidence was looked at?  

Prior to their ‘inquiry’ and their ‘origins are unclear’ line, CRUK’s version of the creation of the Race for Life changed frequently (more here). Hardly the position of an organisation which knows the truth, which has facts, which has evidence to support its many and varied statements.

And then there were the possibly fraudulent claims of their former employee Jill MacRae (more here). MacRae claimed to be the person who created the Race for Life, even challenging Jim Cowan’s claim before going quiet when he produced evidence to the contrary, including a letter signed by MacRae herself.

CRUK have plenty of claims, of stories, of unsubstantiated statements to feed their ‘origins are unclear’ line. But evidence? They have none. They have been unable to provide a single piece of evidence to counter Jim Cowan’s claim to be the event’s creator.

So, what of Jim Cowan? What evidence can he provide to support his claim to be the man who created the event?

Certainly he can provide more than CRUK. Granted, not difficult given CRUK have provided none at all.

First of all, while CRUK have no records from 1993 and 1994 when the event was created, Jim does. He has a copy of his original letter to the Imperial Cancer Research Fund (CRUK’s previous name) proposing the event, explaining why and how he had come up with the idea. Unlike today, 5km charity runs were non-existent at that time so this was a ground-breaking, sector changing idea (more here).

He also has a copy of a reply from Jill MacRae (under her maiden name of Baker) in which she thanks him for his interest in organising an event to benefit the charity and confirming details of their meeting to discuss the idea.

After the first Race for Life took place in 1994, MacRae again wrote, “Mr Cowan came to us with the original idea.” Jim Cowan has a copy of this letter too (read it here).

Other evidence includes the original South of England Athletics Association permit (which incorporated the Public Liability Insurance for the 1994 event), faxes between himself and Runner’s World magazine in which he outlines the event and arranges their support for it, faxes between himself and shoe company ASICS in which he arranges more support for the event, and faxes containing further correspondence between himself and the Imperial Cancer Research Fund.

It is a significant body of evidence and when compared to CRUK’s complete lack of any evidence, Jim Cowan’s case is clearly overwhelming. But it doesn’t end there.

In addition he can provide witnesses from the time the Race for Life was created by him. These witnesses include the person who was working as a temp at the Imperial Cancer Research Fund with whom Jim had discussed his idea and who found MacRae’s contact details for him. They include representatives of clubs who supported the first running of the event by helping to marshal it, they include sponsors of the event and others. Sadly, others who could have provided testimony have since passed away, including the Olympian John Bicourt from whom Jim had much support. Still available though is correspondence between John and Jim.

On top of this, the leading running magazine Runner’s World (who supported the very first Race for Life and continued that support for many years) listed Jim at number two on the list of Running Game Changers it produced to celebrate its thirtieth anniversary in the UK. Why? Because, in their own words, he is the ‘creator of the Race for Life’ (more here).

Then there is Wikipedia who also list Jim as the person who had ‘the original idea for the Race for Life’ (link here).

Who created the Race for Life? The evidence is overwhelming. It is the party who can support his claim with evidence both documentary and provided by witnesses. The origins of the event are far from ‘unclear’ as Cancer Research UK, the party which can provide no evidence at all, claims.

It is time Cancer research UK did the right thing and gave Jim Cowan the recognition he so thoroughly deserves.

In the Race 4 Truth, Cancer Research UK are lagging behind.

CANCER RESEARCH UK’S RIDICULOUS NEW RACE FOR LIFE CLAIM

After over a quarter of a century of false claims, lies, hypocrisy, and covering for fraud, Cancer Research UK (CRUK) are now peddling a ridiculous new claim in order to prevent giving Jim Cowan the recognition due for creating the Race for Life.

In an email CRUK’s Director of Fundraising, Simon Ledsham, has made the claim that they had, “explored all reasonable lines of enquiry” and had been “unable to find any solid evidence which supports his Jim Cowan’s claim to be the sole originator of Race for Life.” The claim was repeated a couple of weeks later by CRUK’s Senior Press Officer Thea MacLeod-Hall in another email.

It is a ridiculous claim.

CRUK have previously stated that they have no documentation from the early years of the Race for Life. It is therefore unclear how their investigation was carried out or who was included.

If an internal enquiry, then it was flawed by having no documentation to refer to, and by excluding those, such as Jim, who could provide valuable evidence.

If an enquiry that included external parties, why was Jim not included? After all, they are aware that he does have copies of original documentation, including his own proposal letter and correspondence from their own staff. In addition, they are also aware that Jim could put them in touch with a number of witnesses who could verify the origins of the event. They should also be aware that Jim had even offered to sit down with Michelle Mitchell, CRUK’s CEO, with this evidence as recently as 2017; an offer which was ignored.

Therefore, the only conclusion possible is that their ‘enquiry’ had no intention of uncovering the truth. Their investigation was merely a smoke screen designed to give the impression of having tried to establish the facts while keeping heads firmly stuck in the sand and deliberately missing an opportunity to correct over 25 years of lies. And a crude tool with which to deliberately mislead anyone making enquires.

In the Race 4 Truth, Cancer Research UK are lagging behind.