Tag Archives: Leszek Borysiewicz

CANCER RESEARCH UK REFUSING TO CORRECT TWENTY FIVE YEARS OF LYING ABOUT RACE FOR LIFE

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:

  1. While CRUK’s story has kept changing, Jim Cowan’s has remained consistent throughout.
  2. 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!

RACE FOR LIFE CREATOR IGNORED AS EVENT REACHES ITS 25TH BIRTHDAY

2019 marks 25 years since the very first Race for Life was staged in 1994 in London’s Battersea Park.

Most organisations might choose such a landmark as an opportunity to thank the person who created such a successful event, but not Cancer Research UK.

Jim Cowan came up with the idea for the event in 1993 following his father’s terminal cancer diagnosis. He took the idea to what was then the Imperial Cancer Research Fund (ICRF) and organised the first Race for Life a year later.

Unfortunately for Jim, the ICRF’s the Events Manager, Jill MacRae, decided to claim the idea as her own and went on to build a successful career in the charity sector on the back of her deception while Jim was told he was surplus to requirements.

Over the intervening years ICRF became Cancer Research UK (CRUK), MacRae moved on, and CRUK lost track of how the enormously successful event had begun, crediting a range of incorrect sources but ignoring Jim.

Nowadays, the people at the top of the charity know the facts but choose to ignore them, not even correcting the incorrect credits of the past. Jim continues to be ignored and, far from being recognised, thanked, or involved in the 25th birthday celebration of his creation, finds himself written out of its history by the charity it has done so much for.

We leave it to others to judge the level of integrity displayed by CRUK in their actions, instead choosing to thank Jim for his incredible, amazing creation; one which has undoubtedly saved  many lives and changed tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of others for the better.

CRUK won’t say it, but we will. Thank you Jim! 

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

HYPOCRISY IS DEEPLY EMBEDDED WITHIN THE CULTURE OF CANCER RESEARCH UK

What is hypocrisy?

The Cambridge English Dictionary defines it thus:

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.

CANCER RESEARCH UK TAKING AN OSTRICH LIKE VIEW TO FACTS

In our most recent articles we have shared correspondence from both Race 4 Truth and from Jim Cowan to Michelle Mitchell, Cancer Research UK’s new Chief Executive, asking her to reconsider the organisation’s refusal to recognise Jim for creating the Race for Life.

For your reference, you can read our letter to Mitchell here, and her non-response here, followed by Jim Cowan’s follow up to her here.

After a wait of four weeks, Jim did eventually receive a reply although not from Mitchell, instead from her organisation’s Complaints Manager, Graeme McCluskey. We share that letter here with analysis of its content below.

It is perhaps telling that Mitchell does not extend the courtesy of replying herself, perhaps choosing to create distance between herself and the charity’s continuing and deliberate ignoring of the facts?

We had hoped when Mitchell was appointed that a new broom might see the dawn of a new culture at CRUK however, the reference to CRUK Chairman Sir Leszek Borysiewicz’s September 2017 correspondence tells us that under the new CEO’s guidance it will be ‘old broom, old culture’ – a culture lacking integrity and of questionable ethics, not to mention hugely hypocritical.

McCluskey, on behalf of Mitchell, repeats the mantra of “we do not credit anyone with originating any of our events”, stating that CRUK’s position has not changed. It sounds reasonable but is far from it.

  1. Cancer Research UK lied about the origins of the Race for Life for nearly a quarter of a century (outlined here). The ‘we do not credit anyone’ line was introduced in 2017 solely to avoid having to face up to and admit those lies. Many of those lies remain in the public domain, uncorrected. Any organisation with integrity would address this as a matter of urgency.
  2. The Race for Life is the only CRUK event which was not developed in-house or by hired contractor. Therefore any rule applying to it being developed internally and individuals responsible not being recognised should not apply.
  3. The event was entirely conceived independently of CRUK by Jim Cowan (see article here) and with the intention he organise and develop it. After he took it to Cancer Research UK (then known as Imperial Cancer Research Fund) proposing it could be a huge event raising funds for them, it was their staff who effectively stole the event by trademarking it behind Jim’s back before informing him he was no longer needed.
  4. They regularly credit, recognise, and thank individuals and organisations external to CRUK for organising fundraising events and challenges for them. Hypocrisy at its best.
  5. They happily accept recognition both for individuals and collectively as an organisation from external bodies. More hypocrisy.
  6. And even more hypocritically, their Chairman (a knighthood), their previous CEO (a knighthood – see article here), and Mitchell herself (an OBE) have happily accepted honours in recognition of their own achievements while refusing to recognise Jim Cowan.

McCluskey’s letter continues by claiming the charity has no record of the communication regarding the job opportunity lost to Jim when CRUK stated they had never heard of him (article here). Apart from being very convenient, it seems to support a view that record keeping within the organisation is somewhat lax and a long way short of what should be expected.

Cancer Research UK, the letter states, has neither employee nor contractor records going back to 1994. What the relevance of this is we do not know, other than to deliberately evade the fact that Jim Cowan was neither an employee nor a contractor in 1993 when he proposed the event to them, nor in 1994 when he organised the very first Race for Life.

McCluskey then reports that his organisation has no internal records of Jim’s involvement either,  suggesting they know he was neither employee nor contractor.

  1. Apart from being very convenient for CRUK it is also not unsurprising given it is highly likely that their then employee Jill MacRae would have covered her tracks and removed evidence to the contrary when falsely and fraudulently claiming to be the event’s originator in 1994/5 (details here and here).
  2. Regardless of (1), Jim offered to meet and share documentary evidence with Mitchell. Given the admission that CRUK has no documentary evidence of their own concerning the origins of the event, some might consider it strange that they have no interest (indeed, make no mention of) this offer. This is the ostrich approach, keeping their heads buried in the sand to avoid hearing facts that support a truth they know but won’t acknowledge. Yet again, this brings the organisation’s integrity into question.
  3. They know the lies they told over 25 years do not hold water. Indeed their lies contradict each other so frequently did they change their story prior to assuming their present ‘we don’t credit anyone’ position. They know they backed a fake and a fraudster in MacRae and rather than do the right thing and show some integrity they choose to keep the truth buried, thereby continuing to support the lie through their silence and their ‘credit no one’ stance.
  4. Indeed, it is about much more than giving credit where credit is due; it is about doing the right thing. What is it that they are so scared of that they do not even want to meet Jim to see and discuss his evidence which includes original documentation?
  5. The only logical conclusion is that they lack the collective moral compass, moral leadership and integrity to do the right thing and admit that they got it wrong.
  6. CRUK’s stance stems back to MacRae’s theft of the event from Jim. Everything since has been to protect that lie. Maybe initially CRUK were unaware but integrity would demand that once exposed, the lie be corrected, apologies made, and due recognition given.

Without correcting the lies of the last 25 years, many of their own staff are in ignorance of the event’s origins having been sold those same lies by their employer; a situation damning of the organisation’s leadership over that time. This is demonstrated by their National Events Manager, Annette Quarry’s (a CRUK employee of over ten years) misinformed insistence that the event originated with the American Cancer Society. This, in 2018 after the ‘credit no one’ policy was supposedly in place. One can only wonder at which version of CRUK’s fake history others in their current and former employ subscribe to. We do know it won’t be the factual version.

In addition to highlighting a disturbing absence in integrity within such a large charity, the ‘credit no one’ stance is extremely hypocritical.

  1. As mentioned above, Borysiewicz (Chairman), Harpal Kumar (previous CEO), and Mitchell have all accepted recognition for themselves while denying recognition for Jim Cowan.
  2. CRUK and Race for Life’s social media are littered with recognition and thanks for their own staff and volunteers while continuing to deny any recognition to Jim Cowan.
  3. CRUK are happy to accept recognition and thanks from others while continuing to deny any recognition and thanks to Jim Cowan.
  4. CRUK regularly thank and recognise a range of external fundraisers, volunteers, and events while (you guessed it) continuing to deny any recognition and thanks to Jim Cowan.

Given all of the above, is it any wonder that Mitchell has chosen not to meet with Jim? Is it any wonder that she delegated even replying to his letter? Perhaps, she is fully aware of the facts around the creation of the Race for Life, she is aware that the charity she now leads has lied about that creation for a quarter of a century? Whether she is aware or not, she should be. It is part of her role as CEO to be informed on such matters. The integrity and moral compass of the charity are being brought into question under her watch. That she chooses to distance herself is incriminating even without considering any/all of the above.

The correspondence between Race 4 Truth, Michelle Mitchell, and Jim Cowan started in January and concluded in April. During that correspondence Race 4 Truth and Jim raised several key points to Mitchell, points which needed addressing or, at a minimum, acknowledging:

  1. That the original motivation behind Jim creating the Race for Life was his own father’s eventually fatal cancer diagnosis. IGNORED BY CANCER RESEARCH UK
  2. That there was documentary evidence available to support the facts and to prove that Jim was the creator of the Race for Life. IGNORED BY CANCER RESEARCH UK
  3. That, in addition to documentary evidence, witnesses were available to support the fact that Jim created the Race for Life. IGNORED BY CANCER RESEARCH UK
  4. That one of their own employees falsely and fraudulently claimed to be the originator of the Race for Life. IGNORED BY CANCER RESEARCH UK
  5. The question of the integrity of the charity were its current stance on the creation of the Race for Life to continue. IGNORED BY CANCER RESEARCH UK
  6. The question of hypocrisy of the charity and, individually, of its leadership were its current stance on the creation of the Race for Life to continue. IGNORED BY CANCER RESEARCH UK
  7. The offer to meet, discuss and share evidence proving who was responsible for the creation of the Race for Life was also IGNORED BY CANCER RESEARCH UK

In the interests of balance, the following are those items raised during our correspondence not ignored by Cancer Research UK:

  1. None. None at all.

Cancer Research UK’s stance can only be described as ostrich like. They know the facts are out there, they know they have been wrong for 25 years, but so long as they keep their head buried in the sand, they can continue to ignore the truth.

IN THE RACE 4 TRUTH, CANCER RESEARCH UK ARE LAGGING BEHIND.

NEW CANCER RESEARCH UK CEO WILL CONTINUE THE HYPOCRISY OF HER PREDECESSOR

Here at the Race 4 Truth we have deliberately posted very few new articles over recent months. Why? Because we have been corresponding with Michelle Mitchell, Cancer Research UK’s new Chief Executive, in the hope that new leadership might see a desire to improve integrity and end the hypocrisy of her predecessor and of the current Chairman.

Having failed to get a satisfactory response, we passed the correspondence on to Jim Cowan who wrote his own letter to Mitchell. Rather than reply herself, she passed Jim’s letter to CRUK’s Complaints Manager, Graeme McCluskey, who eventually replied informing Jim that nothing would be changing.

We will be sharing these letters over the next couple of weeks and we will be analysing exactly what the contents of those letters tells us about the integrity of CRUK and its new leadership, along with the continued hypocrisy.

It is reasonable to suggest that hypocrisy continues to reign supreme as Mitchell, who was happy to accept an OBE in recognition of her own work and achievements, does not see fit to recognise the work and achievement of Jim Cowan in creating the Race for Life.

More to follow in the coming days.

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

CONTINUED SILENCE FROM CANCER RESEARCH UK SERVES ONLY TO INCRIMINATE THEM FURTHER

Since launching the Race 4 Truth in May 2018, we have uncovered and shared a whole host of instances exposing Cancer Research UK’s dishonesty, hypocrisy, support for fraud, poor ethics and low integrity, misleading of supporters, and more, much more. All of this in addition to their continued refusal to recognise the man who created the Race for Life.

The response from Cancer Research UK? A deafening silence. And that silence speaks volumes.

Some might suggest that silence is golden but in this instance, we would suggest it is far from that, instead incriminating Cancer Research UK by their failure to offer any explanation of their actions or any defence to the many issues we have raised.

They are one of the UK’s largest charities with their own large in-house legal department. Yet they have offered neither explanation nor defence to any of the many issues we have uncovered. No defence to the dishonesty (both blatant lies and lies by omission), the hypocrisy, the fraud, and more. Surely an innocent party would react, would respond?

But no, they haven’t.

But then, when you are not innocent, what can you say? What possible evidence can you offer? Maybe Cancer Research UK 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, and supporting fraudulent claims about it.

The continued silence from Cancer Research UK speaks volumes and serves only to incriminate them.

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

YOU CAN NOW CREATE YOUR VERY OWN RACE FOR LIFE “BACK SIGN”

The Race for Life are offering anyone who completed the event in 2018 the opportunity to create their very own ‘back sign’.

They say it is as a “thank you” to everyone who took part. However, where people should wear it once they have attached it to their back they don’t suggest.

To the supermarket? To sporting events? Doing the gardening? To dinner? We don’t know.

We find it a little bizarre. But not nearly as bizarre as the fact they continue to deny any recognition to the man who actually created the Race for Life, a man they unethically and hypocritically continue to ignore while making up a range of tales about the Race for Life’s origins, none of which are true.

You can read the true story here.

In the meantime, we used their ‘back sign’ to create a little reminder for them. Feel free to share it, only not on your back (unless you really want to). We feel on your social media and on their social media might be more appropriate and a little less bizarre.

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

CANCER PLAYS DIRTY AND “SO DO WE” ADMIT CANCER RESEARCH UK

During the summer, Cancer Research UK used a new strap line for its events; “Cancer Plays Dirty, So Do We” – a case of never a truer word spoken, demonstrated by their support for fraud, lies, hypocrisy and more over recent months.

Where to start? It’s not as if it is only one or two instances of Cancer Research UK “playing dirty”. No, “playing dirty” is deeply ingrained in the culture, the very fabric of the organisation.

Cancer Research UK “play dirty” when they refuse to recognise the man who created the Race for Life. Worse, not only have they consistently refused to give him the recognition due, they have made up a whole series of tales inventing different stories for the origins for the event. Misrepresentation at best.

Cancer Research UK “play dirty” when they mislead those considering entering the Race for Life and other events by telling them “this is beating cancer” but not telling them that not a single penny of their entry fee funds any research at all. Worse, they exclude all income from those events, from merchandise, from high street stores, from the figure they cite for percentage of income funding research. Misleading at best. (See Race for Life’s Triple Whammy).

Cancer Research UK “play dirty” when they pay themselves huge salaries, all of which need to be paid before a single penny of funds raised go to research. Their top five earners being paid over £1 million between them and 219 earning over £60,000 a year. More corporate greed that charitable act.

Cancer Research UK “play dirty” when they support the CV of former Head of Events Jill MacRae, who falsely claimed to be the creator of the Race for Life, probably supporting fraud in doing so given that a CV is used in order to make financial gain.

Cancer Research UK “play dirty” when they hypocritically accept awards and recognition for themselves, when they give recognition and awards to their own yet hypocritically deny recognition to the man who created their biggest fundraising event.

Cancer Research UK “play dirty” when they claim never to have heard of the man who created the Race for Life when a different charity asks about him to verify his CV, thus costing him a job offer.

Yes, Cancer Research UK, when you claim you ‘play dirty’ it may be the most (only?) honest claim you have made in months, if not years.

Unethical. hypocritical, dishonest, lacking transparency or integrity. Yes, Cancer Research UK definitely ‘play dirty’ – just not in the way they want you to think.

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

WILL NEW CEO ADDRESS INSTITUTIONAL HYPOCRISY AT CANCER RESEARCH UK?

The Race 4 Truth was established in order to bring public attention to the way Cancer Research UK have denied recognition for Jim Cowan who created the Race for Life.

Over the last quarter of a century, Cancer Research UK has told a range of tales about the origins of the event, all excluding its actual creator. There is evidence that, initially, this might have been because they were misled by former employee Jill MacRae who falsely (possibly fraudulently) laid claim to being the event’s originator.

More recently, perhaps realising they have believed (and promoted) fiction rather than fact, instead showing the sort of integrity you might expect from a charity and acknowledging their mistake, they have taken up a policy of refusing to recognise anyone for the Race for Life’s creation.

In doing so, they have left the door open to accusations of hypocrisy, accusations which reflect reality. How?

The Cambridge English Dictionary defines hypocrisy thus:

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 in refusing to give the recognition rightly due to Jim Cowan, every time they accept recognition (individually or as an organisation), or bestow recognition on others, they are acting hypocritically.

Their previous Chief Executive, Sir Harpal Kumar, was happy to accept a knighthood in recognition of his own work. Yet refused to recognise Jim Cowan as creator of the Race for Life. Hypocrisy?

They Tweeted using Father’s Day as a marketing tool and calling on people to honour fathers affected by cancer while (still) ignoring Jim Cowan and denying him recognition for creating the event and 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. Hypocrisy?

Cancer Research UK have annual Flame of Hope awards in recognition of their volunteers achievements, something we applaud. But every time they Tweet or otherwise share details Flame of Hope Award winners without also recognising the man who created the Race for Life, isn’t it hypocrisy?

Nicholas McGranahan, group leader at the CRUK-UCL Lung Cancer Centre of Excellence, recently won the MD Anderson Wilson Stone Memorial Award and 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. Hypocrisy?

And what of their Chairman, Professor Sir Leszek Borysiewicz, who was knighted in 2001 in recognition of his work. Where does he stand on recognising Jim Cowan for the creation of an event his charity has gained so much through? He refuses to recognise Jim at all. No, it is fine for others to recognise him but not for him to recognise Jim. Hypocrisy?

The above are examples of the dictionary definition hypocrisy which now runs through the fabric, the very culture, of Cancer Research UK. What is good for the charity, its people, its leadership, is not good for Jim Cowan. Hypocrisy? Without a shadow of a doubt.

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 fundraising event deserve recognition too?

The charity’s new Chief Executive Officer took up her new position last week. Michelle Mitchell already has an OBE so we know she is willing to accept recognition for her own achievements. We can only hope that, unlike those who preceded her, she is not a hypocrite and will be keen to ensure recognition to all who merit it both within the organisation and without.

Recognition for Jim Cowan is long, long overdue. Will change at the top at Cancer Research UK finally bring it or will hypocrisy continue to reign supreme? Time will tell.

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

NEW CANCER RESEARCH UK CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER FACING BIG CHALLENGES

Cancer Research UK’s new Chief Executive, Michelle Mitchell, has now taken up her post following her appointment earlier this year. In her new role, she will face many of the same challenges facing all CEO’s, whether in the corporate or charity sector. Where is the organisation going? How will it maintain or increase growth? What will the broader economy mean to fundraising? And more, including understanding and improving public perceptions of the charity.

For over and above the recognised and accepted challenges, Michelle Mitchell faces some that should have no place in any organisation but especially not one in the charity sector, challenges which have festered for too long and which will continue to undermine confidence in the charity if left unaddressed.

They lie within the culture at Cancer Research UK, a culture whereby low integrity and dishonesty are acceptable, hypocrisy is the norm, and fraud by former employees is ignored.

Since launching the Race 4 Truth in May, we have reported on all of the above, citing examples and providing evidence where necessary. The deafening silence from Cancer Research UK speaks to integrity so low that the exposing of this sordid history is not deemed worthy of any comment whatsoever. But then, how do you defend the indefensible?

Our campaign started when Cancer Research UK lied about Jim Cowan having created the Race for Life, costing him a job.

It has traced the many and varied false claims from Cancer Research UK as to the origins of the event and provided evidence, including correspondence from a former employee crediting Jim with taking the original idea to them.

That same employee went on to falsely claim the idea as her own, a claim we queried as potentially fraudulent given it will undoubtedly have appeared on that individual’s CV thereby enhancing her career and gaining her monetary reward. And yet, Cancer Research UK have remained silent over the issue, other former employees even supporting the potentially fraudulent claims. And one can only ponder on whether those false claims were supported with references from Cancer Research UK which helped to embed the lie?

When it became apparent to the charity that the lie was exposed and that they could no longer deny that Jim Cowan created their most successful fundraising event, the policy shifted to one of not crediting anyone (barring one slip by an employee who credited yet another different source).

One can only wonder at the hypocrisy of an organisation, and individuals therein, who refuse to recognise the person who created their largest fundraising event, one which has raised over £1/2 Billion for the charity.

Hypocrisy? Absolutely. For although the charity and its leadership refuse to recognise Jim Cowan, they have been more than happy over the years to accept recognition for themselves; both the outgoing CEO (Harpal Kumar) and current Chairman (Leszek Borysiewicz) have accepted knighthoods in recognition of their own work. The charity and its staff have accepted awards for its work and they also hand out awards to others in recognition of their support.

All of the above in contrast to their refusal to recognise one man, a man who created an enormously successful event, one that changed the fundraising landscape in the UK forever. But who Cancer Research refuse to recognise, let alone thank.

Along the way we have uncovered other issues bringing the charity’s integrity into question. The (deliberate?) omission of any mention of the fact that not a single penny of the entry fee for the Race for Life supports research into cancer. Even asking a straight question as to how much of the funds raised via sponsorship funds research failed to elicit a straight answer, a straight answer we are still waiting for.

Low integrity, misleading supporters, dishonesty, support for fraudsters, hypocrisy. We can only imagine the depths to which these issues go when considered against the breadth of Cancer Research UK’s activities as oppose the recognition of one man’s brilliant creation.

The challenge of bringing about the cultural change needed to reverse the above wrongs cannot be underestimated. We wish Michelle Mitchell well as she takes up her new role and hope she will lead from the front and restore the integrity to Cancer Research UK, integrity which has been absent for far too long.

Not to do so, will only undermine public confidence further, in turn undermining the chances of success in those other challenges we mention at the beginning of this piece.

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