Tag Archives: Race 4 Truth

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.

SOFII – HAPPY TO SHARE THE LIES

The Showcase of Fundraising Innovation and Inspiration (or SOFII for short) make the claim, “We are here to help you be the best fundrais­er you can be, by shar­ing the inno­va­tion and inspi­ra­tion that dri­ves and invig­o­rates our sector.”

It’s a laudable aim. Unfortunately, they do not let the truth get in the way of a good story.

In August 2023 Jim Cowan, the man who actually created the Race for Life, was made aware of an article on the SOFII website which featured Paul de Gregorio (the founder of Rally) giving a talk at SOFII’s ‘I Wish I’d Thought of That’ conference.

The idea de Gregorio wished he had thought of was the Race for Life. However, the background and history of the event he then presented was completely wrong. Given Cancer Research UK’s lies and various different tales they have told about the Race for Life’s history, not knowing the truth was not de Gregorio’s fault. How was he to know that he was simply relaying one version of the numerous fictions CRUK have shared over the years? And we should make clear, de Gregorio is not the one in the wrong here. Like many others, he simply believed a lie also believed by many others, one which CRUK’s leadership know not to be true but refuse to correct.

The version de Gregorio (and SOFII) shared was the one where the Race for Life was a copy of an American event brought to the UK by Imperial Cancer Research UK (CRUK’s previous name) employee Lisa Holland. Along with Jill MacRae and Jane Arnell, Holland is one of a trio of former ICRF employees whose names keep cropping up from that time when the original theft of the idea took place, claiming to have either created it or to have been the inspiration behind it. None have chosen to correct the record, instead happy to accept credit undeserved.

Having been made aware of what he thought was an honest error on SOFII’s part, Jim contacted them on 7th August 2023, making the reasonable request that the page be corrected. On 10th August he also posted a comment on the article expressing his disappointment and providing links to both the Wikipedia page on the event and to our own Race 4 Truth website.

On 14th August SOFII’s Tony Banks promised to look into the matter. Having not heard further, on 31st August Jim emailed a copy of Runner’s World’s ‘top 30 game changers’ article in which he was rightly credited with the Race for Life’s creation. 

By 14th September Jim had yet to receive the courtesy of a reply so he followed up seeking both a response and querying why his comment on the article on SOFII’s website had been blocked from display? This email invoked a reply from Banks in which he repeated the usual lines CRUK cite when denying Jim’s involvement, as per usual without offering any evidence to counter Jim’s claim.

On 18th September Jim replied, this time providing the full and true background and history of the Race for Life including links to evidence supporting his claim, evidence CRUK has never been able to counter. Jim again requested that the page be amended to reflect the facts, the truth.

By 3rd October Jim had not received a reply so again he emailed Banks only to receive an auto-reply that Banks had now left SOFII and giving Carolina Herrera as the person to contact in his place. Jim therefore emailed Herrera in order to chase the matter up and to seek a response.

On 18th October Jim was still awaiting the courtesy of a reply and so emailed Herrera again, also copying in her SOFII colleague Joanna Culling.

No reply was received and the incorrect story and video remain on SOFII’s website.

A screen grab of the comment Jim Cowan posted on the SOFII article on 10th August. At the time of publishing this article, SOFII had still not approved it for sharing.

Jim has not chased SOFII again. Having given them more than ample time and opportunity to respond he has now shared the information with Race 4 Truth.

It has become abundantly clear that SOFII have no interest in reporting facts and no interest in the truth or the accuracy of articles shared on their pages. Indeed, by leaving de Gregorio’s misinformed talk (along with supporting but incorrect details of the Race for Life) SOFII are effectively endorsing the stealing of ideas on their website.

How much credibility does this give to this ‘showcase’ of fundraising and ‘innovation’? What does it say of SOFII’s raison d’être, “we are here to help you be the best fundrais­er you can be, by shar­ing the inno­va­tion and inspi­ra­tion that dri­ves and invig­o­rates our sector” when they know that at least some of what they share is fiction?

How much credibility does this mean SOFII have? They are not interested in facts, in truth. They block comments on their site which seek to correct falsehoods, they don’t reply to emails raising legitimate questions, and they ignore evidence instead believing unsubstantiated CRUK lies.

The concept behind SOFII is a good one, it should be a driver for the sharing of best practice and for genuine innovation. Unfortunately, by sharing one of CRUK’s numerous fake versions of the Race for Life story the motivation behind the organisation and even the truth in their other content must be questioned where no supporting evidence is also presented. Especially when they have been presented with the truth along with supporting evidence of that truth by the man who actually did create the Race for Life, Jim Cowan.

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

RACE 4 TRUTH VISIT CANCER RESEARCH UK HQ

On Friday (22nd September), a small group of Race 4 Truth supporters visited Cancer Research UK’s HQ (CRUK) and spent a couple of hours giving flyers to anyone going into or coming out of the building.

Plenty of flyers were handed out, the police passed by and wished the team well, and even an early Autumn shower could not damp spirits.

It is time for CRUK to tell the truth about the creation of the Race for Life and finally recognise Jim Cowan for his incredible creation.

Look out for more flying visits from Race 4 Truth next year when we will target CRUK offices, shops and events.

CRUK by name, crooks by nature.

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

RUNNER’S WORLD MAGAZINE RECOGNISE JIM COWAN AS THE CREATOR OF THE RACE FOR LIFE

Runner’s World magazine recently celebrated it’s 30th anniversary in the UK and in its 30th Anniversary issue ran a feature on ‘Running Game Changers 1993-2023.’

The article was introduced with the words; “Our running community has gone through some pretty seismic changes in the three decades since Runner’s World arrived in it. Here, we salute 30 key figures who have been instrumental in changing the game.”

And, at number 2 on the list, in amongst famous names such as Jessica Ennis-Hill, Paula Radcliffe, and Usain Bolt, Runner’s World listed ‘Jim Cowan, Creator of Race for Life.’

The piece described how, inspired by his own father’s battle with cancer, Jim’s vision changed the running landscape in the UK by opening up the way for the many running charity fundraising events now a feature on the calendar. Along the way it also became Cancer Research UK’s biggest fundraiser securing over £1Billion for the organisation over the thirty years.

While Cancer Research UK continue to deny the fact that Jim created the event, Runner’s World knows the facts. Indeed, before Jim even launched the event, he was talking to Runner’s World about it and, through their then Women’s Running Editor Alison Fletcher, they came onboard as one of the Race for Life’s very first official partners.

While Cancer Research UK clearly lack the moral compass to correct the record and to recognise Jim Cowan as the creator of the Race for Life and that the event is his father’s legacy, the truth is gradually being recognised by more and more people and organisations.

Ask Google, “who created the Race for Life?” The search engine will tell you it was Jim Cowan.

Wikipedia corrected their entry when provided with evidence as to who created the event and now recognise Jim Cowan as that person, inconveniently for Cancer Research UK, also providing a link to a letter from Jill MacRae on Imperial Cancer Research Fund letterhead (CRUK’s former name) clearly stating the fact. MacRae was later exposed as someone who had laid false claim to being the event’s creator after cutting all ties to Jim Cowan.

And now, one of the world’s most prestigious running publications has recognised Jim for his amazing creation, a magazine that would know because they supported Jim when launching the event in 1994.

Cancer Research UK continue to back themselves into a corner and deny what the evidence supports and what is patently clear to a growing number of others; Jim Cowan created the Race for Life.

When will CRUK and its leadership under CEO Michelle Mitchell, rediscover some integrity, some honesty, and admit they got it wrong. By now, they must know the truth making their continued denial little short of a lie. A lie they happily spin to any and all who will listen.

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

A FATHER’S CANCER, A SON’S TRIBUTE, AND A CHARITY’S LIES

Early in 1993, John Cowan was diagnosed with the Prostate Cancer which would eventually take his life. The diagnosis motivated John’s son, Jim, to create a fundraising event to support the fight against cancer.

Through the summer of 1993, he researched what events already existed and searched for a ‘gap in the market’ – a gap big enough that it could be fully exploited to raise significant funds and increase awareness.

Although his starting point was his father’s Prostate Cancer, he ended up creating an event which raised funds for, and raised awareness of, women’s cancers. That event was to be called ‘The Race For Life.’

Jim had already organised a number of different fundraising events for good causes and also organised some road running events.

Using the road running events as a starting point, he identified that women were seriously underrepresented in running events, often with fewer than 15% of fields. It occurred to him that, surely, more women must want to run these events but, for some reason, weren’t, So, he decided to discover why not?

He found three key things were preventing women from taking part in road running:
1. The distances were generally considered too long. At the time most events were 5 miles and further. 5km road events were few and far between, 5000m being seen more as a track athlete’s event.

2. The events that were available were not viewed as ‘female friendly.’ The general atmosphere was very male dominated and, it was felt, unwelcoming for women.

3. Existing races were overly competitive, very serious and, put simply, just not fun.

Jim realised that, providing a solution to these issues would combine very well with his desire to create a new fundraising event to support the fight against cancer. That solution was to create a series of 5km runs, originally open only to women, which focused on fun not on competition. He called his idea, ‘The Race For Life.’

Initially, Jim took his idea to a breast cancer charity which, following consideration, declined the idea having decided it would not work. Then a conversation with a friend at his local athletic club opened the door to making an approach to the Imperial Cancer Research Fund (ICRF – Cancer Research UK’s former name). That friend was about to start working at the charity and promised to find a contact name for Jim to approach.

This she did, and on 5th October 1993 Jim wrote to ICRF’s Events Manager, Jill MacRae (nee Baker), outlining his idea*. A meeting was arranged, which then led to Jim organising the very first Race for Life in Battersea Park in 1994.

Sadly, John Cowan passed away in November 1993 and never saw the event he inspired come to fruition. 

That Jim Cowan created the Race for Life and that it was his father’s cancer diagnosis that inspired him should be a matter of historical record. However, following the successful launch in 1994 Jill MacRae decided to falsely claim the idea as her own and ICRF, and later CRUK, have denied the idea was Jim’s, coming up with a range of different stories and whitewashing him from any mention in association with the event, thus also denying John Cowan of his legacy.

It is time for Cancer Research UK to do the right thing, stop the lies, and recognise Jim for his amazing creation and his father for inspiring him. It is a creation which has benefitted the charity by over £1 Billion, opened up running to women, and which changed the fundraising landscape in the UK forever. And, but for Cancer Research UK’s deception, one which should be a fitting tribute from a son to his deceased father.

Remembering John Francis Cowan. 

16th July 1932 – 18th November 1993.

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

*Below, a copy of Jim’s original letter proposing the Race for Life to ICRF/CRUK.

CANCER RESEARCH UK’S BROKEN ‘FUNDRAISING PROMISE’

On page 62 of Cancer Research UK’s most recent Annual Report is their ‘fundraising promise’. One part of that ‘promise’ is, “to be transparent about where your money goes.”

Except, they aren’t. Worse, they know they aren’t. Which means, they know they had no intention of keeping that promise when they made it. And there is a word for that, it is called a lie.

As an example, on Cancer Research UK’s own website, there is no reference as to where the entry fee for the Race for Life goes. We know already that it does not go to research but CRUK won’t tell you that.

On the Race for Life’s ‘About Our Events’ page, at the bottom there is a link to ‘Where Your Money Goes.’ Only, the page does not tell you where your money goes. It tells you what various amounts of money can buy or support but not where your entry fee goes.

Is that being ‘transparent about where your money goes?’

Rather than be honest and state what percentage of your entry fee funds any research (i.e. be transparent about it), they choose not to mention it at all.

Rather than be honest and state what percentage of any money you spend on merchandise funds any research (i.e. be transparent about it), they choose not to mention it at all.

And, rather than be honest and tell you what percentage of money raised through sponsorship funds any research (i.e. be transparent about it), they choose not to mention it at all.

Is that being ‘transparent about where your money goes?’

The truth is that not a penny from your entry fee funds any research, not a penny from merchandise sales funds any research and, despite being pushed, they won’t say what percentage of money raised through sponsorship funds research.

And what of their Race for Life television commercial? Is that ‘transparent about where your money goes?’

Of course not.

There is no mention of where it goes, only the lie by omission and the oft used (but deliberately misleading) claim; ‘sign up today for your local Race for Life event and together we will beat cancer.’ 

It is a topic we have visited, and revisited, over the years and yet Cancer Research UK show no signs of being honest about where this money does (or, more accurately, does not) go. To use their own term, they show no signs of being ‘transparent’ about where your money goes, despite brazenly promising to do so in their Annual Report.

The only possible conclusion to be drawn is that they are being deliberately dishonest, promising to do something with absolutely no intention of doing it. That fundraising promise is nothing other than a broken promise, a promise the knew they would break as they were making it.

It is just another Cancer Research UK lie in a long history of lies, deceptions, hypocrisy, fraud, and generally poor ethics. And, of course, of broken promises.

See also:
Race For Life Tweet Confirms That None Of The Entry Fee Goes To Funding Research Into Cancer
Race For Life’s Triple Deception Misleading Supporters

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

RUNNERS NEED – JUST ANOTHER BIG BUSINESS WITH NO INTEGRITY

Imagine you are a specialist running company and you get the opportunity to become a corporate partner with one of the largest running events in the country.

You’d be a fool to turn that opportunity down, wouldn’t you?

Then, imagine that after signing up you are warned that your new partner is not who they appear to be, not what they claim. You are warned of serious ethical and honesty issues, that the organisation behind the event lacks integrity.

What would you do then?

Runners Need wrote back to the person who had warned them stating that they carefully consider who they associate their brand with, especially when it comes to partnerships. They undertook to review the information they had been given and take any action they felt appropriate to ensure their business, “remains aligned to its core values.”

Only they didn’t. It was lip service. No meaningful review took place. 

How do we know this? Because the individual writing to them was Race for Life creator Jim Cowan, and he had advised them that he had evidence to support everything he said about Cancer Research UK should they wish to see it.

But they didn’t ask to see any of it. Their ‘review’ did not include looking at evidence. Seriously?

What does that tell you about those ‘core values’ they claimed to be so keen to remain aligned with?

And, next time you want fair, impartial advice on a pair of running shoes or other kit, what does it tell you about any advice you might receive from Runners Need?

Are they selling you the right pair of shoes for you and your particular running style? Or are they only claiming to do that, while actually selling you the pair which serves their own self-interest most?

Based on their opting to continue their partnership with the Race for Life, based on their deliberately ignoring evidence offered as part of their ‘review’, which do you believe?

Runners Need’s deliberate ignoring of evidence in pursuit of corporate greed tells everything about the ‘core values’ to which they referred. Core values devoid of morals, of honesty, of integrity. Core vales based only in serving self.

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

CANCER RESEARCH UK CEO CELEBRATES ‘STORY TELLING’

No, it is probably not what she meant, but when Cancer Research UK CEO Michelle Mitchell excitedly tweeted on 19th April (see below) that she was on her way to a day of story telling, we couldn’t help thinking how apt it was.

Cancer Research UK and Michelle Mitchell are not shy when it comes to story telling, making claims and other reports across their numerous social media profiles. But, why isn’t anyone questioning how much of what they say is true? After all, an organisation which is quite happy to consistently lie about one thing is highly unlikely to be honest with you about everything else. 

And this shouldn’t be news to anyone. They have been telling stories (i.e. lying) to you for over a quarter of a century, both in their current format and in their previous incarnation as the Imperial Cancer Research Fund. 

Cancer Research UK, its CEO Michelle Mitchell, and many others within the organisation (including its Trustees), are fully aware of that lie, fully aware of the stories they have made up to cover for the lie. They are fully aware that at least one key part of the charity’s history is, literally, made up. And they have told many a story over the last 28 years in order to cover up what they know to be a lie. And that must cast doubt on any other claims they make, tales they tell. For where there is one big lie, there are likely to be others.

Cancer Research UK, and its predecessor the Imperial Cancer Research Fund, have rewritten the history, in other words retold the story, of the Race For Life to exclude Jim Cowan, the person who actually created it, and then spent the next 28 years spreading different fictional versions, story telling about the event’s creation. To be blunt, they have lied. Not once, but repeatedly.

We must therefore pose the question; how can anyone know for sure that they haven’t rewritten other parts of their story, made up other tales they tell? After all, they do like telling stories, Mitchell’s tweet confirms this.

Mitchell might claim that she knows nothing of this rewriting of history, although as CEO she should avail herself of the facts. And, of course, she has had that opportunity but declined it. 

In the past the very weak defence was that they had no documentation from the event’s creation. 

But that doesn’t hold water. Firstly, without documentation, without evidence, what are the numerous fictional versions they have relayed over the years based on? Secondly, because we have offered (on more than one occasion) to sit down and share documents and witness contacts with Mitchell. Unfortunately, she was not interested. She prefers telling stories to seeing and hearing evidence that clearly proves Jim Cowan created the Race For Life and that Cancer Research UK have peddled nothing more than a series of lies (sorry, stories) over the intervening years.

In short, they know they are not telling the truth but prefer not to correct the lies; they prefer fiction to truth, they prefer story telling. Otherwise, why not sue us? Why not sue Jim Cowan? The answer is simple; you cannot sue someone for telling the truth. And they know that truth would be crystal clear in a court. The evidence supports it.

How can they then talk about Cancer Research UK’s history when, clearly, they don’t even care whether parts of it are even accurate? Worse, they know it is a lie but look the other way, pretend not to know, tell stories. And if one part of the story is told while known to be false, what else among their posts, press releases, claims, and other tales require (politely) closer examination?

Cancer Research UK and its CEO Michelle Mitchell have declined the opportunity to see documentation and to speak to witnesses who can confirm the correct story of the creation of the Race for Life.

They prefer knowingly to tell stories, a series of made up tales which ignore any facts which do not fit their near three decade history of lying. They even claim to have held an inquiry into the origins of the Race for Life but, for some strange reason, don’t want to make it public, to open it to scrutiny. It’s just another story they tell.

Surely, therefore, as well as the truth of any story CRUK tell us, another big question that has implications for the organisation’s future, is that of whether it can be trusted? 

With a track record of rewriting history, lies, hypocrisy, turning a blind eye to fraud, low integrity, poor ethics, and absent morals (all evidenced), we certainly would not trust them. But they could very quickly make a start on repairing the damage by recognising Jim Cowan, putting the record straight on their employee fraud, and acknowledging the many wrongs done in the last quarter of a century. It would be a vast improvement on the many stories they have told.

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

NOTE: We should add that we also know that the Race for Life’s creator, Jim Cowan, has offered to sit down with Mitchell and her predecessor as CEO (Harpal Kumar) to share documents, correspondence and witness contacts on more than one occasion. Both Mitchell and Kumar declined or ignored those numerous offers. It appears that accuracy, honesty, and truth; and with them trust, are not high up Cancer Research UK’s list of priorities. They prefer to stick to story telling.

Mitchell’s 19th April Tweet

JIM COWAN’S LATEST INTERVIEW WITH SONIA POULTON ON BNT RISE

Yesterday morning, 4th July, Race for Life creator Jim Cowan was the guest on Sonia Poulton and Sean Ward on their breakfast show, Rise, on BNT.

Sonia has kindly provided us with a copy of the interview to share with Race 4 Truth supporters.

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

CANCER RESEARCH UK’S DISHONESTY EXPOSED

It is reasonable for the public to expect honesty, transparency, integrity and accountability from charities. Unfortunately, in the case of Cancer Research UK (CRUK) you get none of them.

That CRUK happily turned a blind eye to the fraud of their then employee Jill MacRae has been a matter of record for some time.

MacRae infamously claimed to be the creator of the Race for Life after stealing the event from its real inventor, Jim Cowan. So brazen was she that she even threatened Cowan with legal action if he did not desist from his own, honest, claim. But he stood firm and MacRae, now with Barnardo’s, backed down and removed all such claims from her social media.

However, by including this false claim on her CV, she committed an act of fraud, an act supported by CRUK who happily provided references to that effect. Indeed, historically CRUK recognised MacRae as the event’s creator, a falsehood they have never corrected.

It is over a quarter of a century since Jim Cowan came up with the idea for the Race for Life in 1993 and organised the very first event in 1994. This is evidenced by records from that time, a matter of historical record. However, since 1995 CRUK have consistently lied about the origins of the event, denying due recognition to Cowan.

Initially they supported MacRae’s dishonesty and fraud, then they cited a series of other origins for the event before, eventually, rather than show integrity and admit they had been wrong, they adopted a line of ‘no one person was responsible for creating the event.’ This, despite all evidence clearly showing Cowan did create the event. And, in not correcting the lies, in continuing to deny Cowan any recognition, they display a lack of honesty, a lack of accountability, and a complete absence of integrity.

CRUK’s dishonesty is further evidenced by the numerous deliberately misleading claims they make to draw people into their events. Take for example the claim, ‘this is beating cancer’ used to promote the Race for Life. The reality is that not a single penny from the event entry fees went to research and not a single penny from merchandising went to funding research. Clearly not ‘beating cancer’ but more likely funding the corporate excess CRUK enjoy.

In fairness to CRUK, those entering the Race for Life who decided to also raise sponsorship might well have contributed to ‘beating cancer’ but that is not what the advertising claimed. And, when challenged, CRUK would not clarify what percentage of funds raised through sponsorship went to actual research, went to actually ‘beating cancer.’

It is a very murky picture. It is a picture of deliberately misleading claims, of outright dishonesty, of an absence of integrity, and a complete lack of transparency and accountability. It is certainly not what the public should expect from a charity.

And this is what we know about. How much dishonesty remains uncovered?

For where there is one lie, there are usually more. And when an organisation lies with so much ease and such frequency it is usually because dishonesty is so deeply embedded within its culture.

IN THE RACE FOR TRUTH, CANCER RESEARCH UK ARE LAGGING BEHIND

Further reading:
THE TRUE STORY OF HOW THE RACE FOR LIFE WAS BORN
WHY DON’T CANCER RESEARCH UK SUE?