The Race 4 Truth has now been up and running for fourteen months and the silence from Cancer Research UK in response has been deafening.
Some might suggest that silence is golden but in this instance, we would suggest it is incriminating.
They are a large charity with their own very large legal department. In just fourteen months, we have uncovered and shared lies (both blatant and by omission), hypocrisy, possible fraud, poor ethics, low integrity, an absence of values, and more.
Surely an innocent party, especially one with the large legal department at their disposal, would react; respond?
But when you are not innocent, what can you say? What would that legal advice be? Maybe Cancer Research UK and their legal eagles think silence is the best option? Maybe they think eventually we will give up and go away?
We won’t. Not until Cancer Research UK do the right thing and recognise Jim Cowan for creating the Race for Life instead of lying about it, making up fiction about it, hypocritically accepting recognition for themselves, supporting fraudulent claims about it, and more.
You have the right to remain silent……
Silence from Cancer Research UK is not golden. It is incriminating.
In the Race 4 Truth, Cancer Research UK are lagging behind.
Pretty much every organisation across every sector that is worth its salt will have a publicly stated set of values. The importance of ‘Values’ is so high that it has become standard practice that, in well run organisations, they are stated in the Mission Statement alongside the Vision and the Mission.
You know the kind of thing; we will act with integrity, we are customer focused, we source our products ethically, and so on.
Given the many issues with Cancer Research UK (CRUK) and Race for Life that Race 4 Truth has highlighted over the last year, we thought it would be interesting to seek out CRUK’s Values and compare them to reality.
We thought it would be as simple as visiting their website and looking their Values up. It wasn’t. Instead, after a couple of hours searching their site, we were left having to assume that they don’t have any values to share.
But then, they must do. Their website clearly states of its Council of Trustees; “Council’s role is to set the Charity’s strategic direction, monitor the delivery of the Charity’s objects, uphold its values and governance and guide, advise and support the Chief Executive, who leads the Senior Management Team towards achieving the Charity’s vision and purpose.”
So, we searched again. And, buried on page 39 of CRUK’s Annual Report, we found a list of “promises” to the organisation’s supporters. The first of these states; “To be transparent about where your money goes.” That sounded a lot like a Value to us so we searched the website for more information and finally found CRUK’s ‘Fundraising Promise.’
Here, they expand on the line in their Annual Report by stating that they promise “To be transparent about where your money goes.” They go on to say: “For every £1 donated, over 80p is used to beat cancer.”
Except, it isn’t. Their ‘transparency’ doesn’t stretch to telling their supporters that, according to CRUK’s own annual report, nothing from the following goes to funding research, and nothing from the following list is included when calculating that 80p: -Income from event entries and tickets (eg Race for Life) -Income from event merchandising -Income from commercial sponsorship of events -Income from high street ‘charity’ shops
Transparent? More like a broken promise.
The ‘Fundraising Promise’ goes on to state; “We are proud to champion the principles of honesty, accountability and transparency when fundraising.” Perhaps they should add; “as long as we don’t have to tell you that by entering the Race for Life you have given not a single penny to research.” Indeed, when advertising entries for the Race for Life they even use the (misleading) tag line ‘this is beating cancer.’
Honesty? They have lied about the origins of the Race for Life for 25 years and, once provided with evidence, refused to put the lies right by telling truth. They even supported a fraudulent claim by then employee Jill MacRae that she had created the event. They now know she didn’t but have failed to right that wrong.
Accountability? To whom exactly. Handily, they don’t say.
Transparency? Well, when directly asked how much of the sponsorship money raised by Race for Life participants funds research they were (again) very careful with their wording (ie not transparent). “100% of it goes to Cancer Research UK.”
Note, to “Cancer Research UK”, not to cancer research. Far from funding research, a chunk of that money funds sky high salaries, expensive offices, glossy TV commercials, and more.
Transparent?
And their CEO Michelle Mitchell cannot claim to be unaware of the importance of clear values. Under her leadership in her previous role as CEO at the Multiple Sclerosis Society, a clear set of values was put in place. But then, Mitchell is already rewriting the book in her new role, especially when it comes to hypocrisy. And what of the CRUK Council of Trustees responsible for “upholding its values?” Are none of them asking questions?
We were searching for Values, a set of standards to which Cancer Research UK hold themselves responsible. In their place we found empty promises already broken.
They have lied about the Race for Life for 25 years, they deliberately mislead their supporters while claiming transparency, they claim accountability without saying to whom. Why should we believe a single word they say? Cancer Research UK, an integrity free zone, would like you to trust them with your hard earned money. Just don’t ask them where it goes.
If it matters to you, why not ask Michelle Mitchell directly. Her Twitter handle is @Michelle_CRUK – we are sure she would love to hear from you and to explain CRUK’s values and (broken) promises.
In the Race 4 Truth, Cancer Research UK are lagging behind.
Followers of the Race for Life’s social media were stunned yesterday when a tweet appeared which was (almost) honest.
After years of deliberately misleading followers by failing to let them know that not a single penny of their entry fee goes to fund research, they tweeted; “remember, your entry fee can’t beat cancer – only you can.”
While still not stating the full facts, it is about as honest as Race for Life have been in years about how much of the income generated by the event actually funds research (and not the gravy train it has become).
For clarity, none of the entry fee funds research, none of the merchandise sales fund research, none of the commercial sponsorship funds research, none of the local authority support funds research, and an unclear amount of income raised via individual fundraising funds research (definitely less than 79% although Cancer Research UK have yet to reply when asked).
In the Race 4 Truth, Cancer Research UK are lagging behind.
We have probably all seen those television advertisements pleading with you to “donate just £2 a month to cancer research.”
The glossy productions tug at the heartstrings and surely only the hardest of hearts would not be moved to being at least tempted to sign up?
But what the glossy advertisements don’t tell you is that Cancer Research UK need over 18,000 to sign up to donate “just £2 a month” for a year solely to cover the cost of Michelle Mitchell, their Chief Executive, one of, if not the, most expensive in the sector.
And that is without including the cost of making the commercial and of buying the prime time advertising slots!
A charity headed by someone on a basic (yes, without add ons) of £250,000 per annum, is asking hard working people on minimum wages and average salaries who are struggling to get by, to find extra to help fund corporate style excesses, cleverly disguised by playing on their emotions for a reaction.
Please, make sure that when you donate your hard earned money, it is more likely to be used for research into cancer than to pay the grossly inflated salaries at a charity which lies about the origins of its own largest fundraising event (the Race for Life) and refuses to to recognise the creator of that event while hypocritically giving and accepting all sorts of recognition to and from others.
How? Choose a different charity which funds and supports research into cancer as a priority over self serving salary packages, lying to its followers, and mind boggling hypocrisy.
*On-costs calculated using https://goodcalculators.com/true-cost-of-an-employee-calculator/
Two days ago we posted an article which, once again, highlighted the hypocrisy of Cancer Research UK. The article pointed out their hypocrisy in asking people to nominate their Race for Life hero while, for the last 25 years, they have refused to give the event’s creator, Jim Cowan, any recognition at all.
We suggested that without Jim the near £1 Billion raised through the event would never have been possible. We highlighted the organisation’s hypocrisy and how they have refused to distance themselves from the fraudulent activities of Jill MacRae, the employee who faked creating the event herself. We pointed out their campaign to whitewash Jim’s name from the event’s history.
We then asked you to speak against the hypocrisy, the lack of integrity, and nominate Jim Cowan as your Race for Life hero. To nominate the person without whom none of it would have happened.
And, lots of you did. Thank you.
And, guess what? Cancer Research UK and the Race for Life have again highlighted their hypocrisy and their lacking integrity. On both Twitter and on Facebook, those nominating anyone other than Jim have been asked to email their nomination in while those nominating Jim have been ignored (see screen grab examples below).
It is an incredible demonstration of low integrity, even of ballot rigging. It is a classic example of hypocrisy.
They would like a Race for Life hero. Just not one they are trying to ignore and remove from the history of the event he created.
And, if we can’t trust Cancer Research UK’s integrity on this issue, why should we trust them on any other; such as with our money?
Please continue to help us in ensuring Jim Cowan is not whitewashed from the history of the Race for Life and that he finally gets the recognition he so richly deserves. Please continue to let Race for Life and Cancer Research UK know how you fell. Please follow Race 4 Truth on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and through this website.
Thank you for your support. We’re not going away until Jim gets the recognition he deserves.
In the Race 4 Truth, Cancer Research UK are lagging behind.
Please note, we are not in any way suggesting those other people nominated are not worthy. Quite the opposite. We believe anyone who goes above and beyond deserves recognition. Especially the man who created an event which has raised nearly £1 Billion and has been copied by so many other charities since.
In yet another bout of hypocrisy, Cancer Research UK are asking people to nominate their Race for Life hero (or heroes).
This is the same organisation which refuses to recognise, let alone thank, the man who created the Race for Life; the man without whom none of the near £1billion it has raised would have been possible. Instead, they are trying to airbrush that man, Jim Cowan, from the event’s history while taking no steps to distance themselves from the fraudulent activities of Jill MacRae, the employee who faked creating the event herself.
Why not help us to speak against this hypocrisy, this lack of integrity; why not nominate Jim Cowan as your Race for Life hero; why not nominate the person without whom none of it would have happened?
Cancer Research UK have long maintained a highly hypocritical stance when it comes to giving recognition where it is due. And their new CEO appears keen to continue the tradition.
We have previously reported how she refuses to any recognition to Jim Cowan for creating the Race for Life while happily accepts recognition for herself, not least in the form of an OBE.
And with the announcement of the Queen’s Birthday Honours list, she is at it again. Her and her integrity free, hypocritical charity are happy to accept recognition, and tell the world about it. But the silence over Jim Cowan continues, the airbrushing of his name from the Race for Life’s history continues.
We are not suggesting that any of the awards and recognition Mitchell refers to in her tweets are not deserved. We believe in due recognition being given wherever it is merited. It is the hypocrisy displayed by Mitchell and the organisation she heads we find mind-boggling.
It is dictionary definition, classic hypocrisy.
In the Race 4 Truth, Cancer Research UK are lagging behind.
This week is Volunteers Week and Cancer Research UK and Race for Life have been busy using social media to thank some who have been giving their time and supporting them in one way or another.
This is how it should be. Those who support them, or any other cause, should be given due recognition and thanks for their contribution no matter how small or large.
However, conspicuous by its absence is the long awaited recognition of, and thanks to, Jim Cowan, the man who created the Race for Life, an event which has been incredibly successful and raised hundreds of millions over the last quarter of a century.
Cherry picking those you thank and those you give recognition to undermines the sincerity of your message. By being selective, it gives the impression that it is hollow words driven by PR, and not a genuine appreciation of support given.
Meanwhile, worse than neither recognising nor thanking Jim, Cancer Research UK are instead trying to whitewash his name from the event’s history. After lying about the its origins for 25 years before being exposed, after supporting the fraudulent claims of their former employee Jill MacRae (who falsely claimed to be the event’s originator to bolster her CV), rather than set the record straight they choose to pretend the lies never happened, not correct them, and pursue a policy of not giving anyone credit for creating the event.
The hypocrisy is mind-boggling when you consider both Cancer Research UK’s Chair, Leszek Borysiewicz, and its CEO, Michelle Mitchell, have both been happy to accept recognition and thanks for themselves, not least a knighthood for Borysiewicz and an OBE for Mitchell.
Volunteers Week presents an opportunity for Cancer Research UK to set the record straight. Instead, they continue to show little integrity, poor ethics, low morals and act hypocritically. Calling their selective thank yous double standards, would be a huge understatement.
In the Race 4 Truth, Cancer Research UK are lagging behind.
For 25 years, Cancer Research UK have lied about Jim Cowan and the creation of the Race for Life. Their lies have cost him the recognition and thanks he so thoroughly deserves and have even cost him a job offer.
Sadly, even though they know the facts, rather than correct 25 years of lies, they have chosen to simply pretend the lies never happened and have assumed a stance which continues to exclude Jim from his rightful place in the event’s history.
The problem with falsehoods, with lies, is that eventually you forget what you claimed and claim something else entirely, catching yourself out. And, of course, you have no evidence to support your fiction because it is just that, fiction. No records of discussions, of meetings, of correspondence. Because they don’t exist.
Indeed, in recent correspondence, Cancer Research UK acknowledged that they have kept no records from the creation and launch of the landmark fundraising event. But, ever keeping their heads in the sand when confronted by facts, they declined Jim Cowan’s offer to meet with them and share copies of documents from 1993 and 1994 which clearly evidence the idea was his and his alone.
But how many lies have been told in that quarter of a century? We have no way of knowing! So, interested in checking out Cancer Research UK’s false claims, Race 4 Truth carried out a little research which has exposed a story which, as such fictions do, keeps changing. There may be more and different claims, but in less than one day’s digging, this is what we uncovered:
1994
In a letter from Jill MacRae, its then National Events Manager, what was then the Imperial Cancer Research Fund (ICRF) credited Jim Cowan with coming to them with the original idea for the Race for Life. This was the last time they were honest about who created the event.
1995
After severing all ties to Jim Cowan, Jill MacRae started to claim she came up with the Race for Life herself. It would appear that ICRF/CRUK believed her. She went on to build a career on the false, probably fraudulent, claim and is currently the Business Development Manager at Barnardo’s.
2000
In an article in the 19th July issue of Athletics Weekly, an ICRF spokesperson claimed that the Race for Life was based on, “a concept from America called Walk for a Cure.” In the same issue of Athletics Weekly, a letter from Louise Holland, ICRF’s Race for Life Director, stated, “the concept was taken from the Susan Komen Foundation.” They couldn’t even keep their lies consistent for a week
2013
In November of 2013, Jill MacRae contacted Jim Cowan via Linked In and email threatening legal action if he did not stop claiming to have created the Race for Life. Supported by Jane Arnell, Tony Elischer, and Sarah Guthrie (former colleagues of hers at ICRF/CRUK), she claimed they were all “shocked” by Jim’s “misleading claims.” MacRae claimed to have never heard of Jim Cowan and asserted that her colleagues had not either. The 1994 letter from Jill MacRae to Jim Cowan puts the lie to that lie. Over the past year, we have shared more evidence that includes correspondence to and from Jill Macrae to support Jim’s position and which debunks MacRae’s lies.
Also in November of 2013, Jill MacRae amended the Race for Life entry on Wikipedia to state; “Race for Life was created by fundraisers Jill MacRae (nee Baker) and Jane Arnell at what was then the Imperial CancerResearch Fund.” At Jim’s request, supported by evidence, Wikipedia amended the page to show the truth, that the creator of the Race for Life was him.
On 12th December, Jim Cowan responded to Jill MacRae’s threats stating; “To say that I am surprised at both your claims and you accusation would be an understatement. Your cynical duplicity in laying claim to the original idea is preposterous and your accusation that my own claims are untrue is a gross misrepresentation of the facts.”
Jim has not heard from MacRae, or her colleagues, since. Why not, we wonder? Interestingly, MacRae has since removed the false claim from all of her online profiles. We wonder whether she still uses the lie on her CV? That, of course, would be fraud.
2016
Jim Cowan was advised that the website ‘Informed Edinburgh’ had carried an article titled ‘Spotlight on Jill MacRae’ in which she stated; “I created the Race for Life and organised the very first 5K event way back in 1993 (sic), when I was National Events Manager at what is now Cancer Research UK. The article was removed after Jim contacted the website advising them that, “Ms MacRae knows this not to be the case” providing evidence debunking her lie.
2017
In May 2017 , Nicki Ford from Cancer Research UK stated, “We do not publicly credit anyone with originating the event.”
In September 2017, Cancer Research UK’s Chairman, Prof. Sir Leszek Borysiewicz, stated, “We do not credit anyone with originating the event.”
It would appear that, unable to prove any of the previous claims Cancer Research UK and, primarily, Jill MacRae had made about the creation of the event (how could they?), the policy was now to simply shut up and claim nothing.
2018
Maybe she didn’t get the memo shared by Ford and Borysiewicz, or maybe it was just time to change the claim again, but in May 2018, Cancer Research UK’s current National Events Manager, Annette Quarry, stated that the original pilot was from yet another different source, this time the American Cancer Society.
2019
We had hoped that Cancer Research UK’s new Chief Executive, Michelle Mitchell, might take the opportunity to put the record straight and restore some of the charity’s missing integrity. Unfortunately not. Despite Jim’s offer to meet her and provide her with documentary evidence, she ducked responding herself, delegating the task to her Complaints Manager, Graeme McCluskey. He used the excuse that the organisation do not have any internal records of Jim’s involvement with the Race for Life. In place of taking the opportunity to view and discuss evidence, Cancer Research UK have kept their collective heads buried deep in the sand. An opportunity to correct 25 years of lies was passed up; no corrections, no apologies, just very deliberate ignorance of the facts displaying a complete absence of integrity
We now wait with baited breath for the next claim as to the creation of the Race for Life. There are two things we know for sure though:
While CRUK’s story has kept changing, Jim Cowan’s has remained consistent throughout.
While CRUK and their various employees (current and former) have offered no supporting evidence for any of their claims, Jim Cowan has. Race 4 Truth will continue sharing that evidence over the coming weeks, months, and years.
Here is another fact for Cancer Research UK; the truth is consistent, it has no need to vary its story in the way that Cancer Research UK’s fiction has. Jim’s truth can be proven. Their lies cannot.
Ask yourself, who do you believe? Jim Cowan or Cancer Research UK?
In the Race 4 Truth, Cancer Research UK are lagging behind!
Hypocrisy (hɪˈpɒk.rɪ.si); a situation in which someone pretends to believe something that they do not really believe, or that is the opposite of what they do or say at another time:
There’s one rule for her and another rule for everyone else and it’s sheer hypocrisy.
And this definition fits perfectly in describing the culture within Cancer Research UK and its policy of accepting recognition both individually and collectively while refusing to offer recognition to Jim Cowan, the person who created their most popular and significant fundraising event; the Race for Life.
This culture of hypocrisy comes from the very top of the organisation with the new CEO, Michelle Mitchell, leading the way in continuing the practice embedded by her predecessor, Harpal Kumar. Both have refused to recognise Jim Cowan for his incredible contribution to the charity’s fundraising and yet both are happy to accept recognition for their own work, including a knighthood by Kumar and an OBE by Mitchell.
The organisation’s Chairman, Leszek Borysiewicz, is no better. He endorses the refusal to recognise Cowan but has also accepted recognition for himself in the form of his knighthood.
What about Cancer Research UK’s committees and trustee membership? On page 45 of their 2017/18 Annual Report we can see that the thirteen strong list includes three knights and one dame. Yes, the hypocrisy runs deep within the very fabric of the charity and is clearly endorsed from the top down.
What of other examples? There are many and anyone following the organisation’s social media will see regular tweets and posts offering recognition and thanks to those who help the charity, and thanking those who recognise them. But recognition for Jim Cowan, not a peep.
Examples include using Father’s Day as a marketing tool and calling on people to honour fathers affected by cancer while ignoring Jim Cowan and denying him recognition for creating the event, in full knowledge of the fact that the inspiration behind Jim’s creating of the Race for Life was his own father’s cancer diagnosis in 1993.
How about Cancer Research UK’s own annual Flame of Hope awards in recognition of their volunteers achievements, something we applaud. But every time they Tweet or otherwise share details of Flame of Hope Award winners without also recognising the man who created the Race for Life they again demonstrate that deeply embedded cultural hypocrisy.
Then there was Nicholas McGranahan, group leader at the CRUK-UCL Lung Cancer Centre of Excellence, who last year won the MD Anderson Wilson Stone Memorial Award. Cancer Research UK were quick to applaud the award, to promote the achievements of one of their own. But what of Jim Cowan? Still nothing.
The examples are many, of which these are but a few, led by the people at the very top of the charity every one of them providing a dictionary definition example of the hypocrisy which is not only embedded within the organisation but actively encouraged by Cancer Research UK’s leadership.
We do not criticise the recognition of any of the above, we take that recognition at face value and assume it to be deserved. But we ask Cancer Research UK, doesn’t Jim Cowan deserve recognition too? Doesn’t the person who created your biggest and most popular fundraising event deserve recognition (if not thanks) too?
Recognition for Jim Cowan is long, long overdue, a quarter of a century overdue. We had hoped that change at the top at Cancer Research UK would finally bring that change. Unfortunately, hypocrisy continues to reign supreme.
In the Race 4 Truth, Cancer Research UK are lagging behind.
