I HAVE watched and listened with rapt attention as much ink has been spilled and air-time consumed by doping allegations directed at Paula Radcliffe. There has been sweeping speculation, a great deal of it ill-informed.

Radcliffe's evident agony in a personal, public soul-baring is unmatched in my near-50 years of reporting sport. She confirmed yesterday that she has waived her right to have her blood samples destroyed after 10 years. This means samples from her world record race in London, in 2003, can be tested as long as there is enough left to test.

The 1750-word statement she felt compelled to make following a Culture, Media and Sport Committee hearing was heart-rending. Its Conservative chairman, Jesse Norman, suggested London Marathon winners and medallists "potentially British athletes . . . are under suspicion for very high levels of blood doping".

Since Liz McColgan's victory in 1996, no other UK athlete, male or female, has won it. So though not specifically identified by name, this prompted Radcliffe to break silence. Since Mr Norman used what she described as "the cloak of Parliamentary privilege" she knows there can be no recourse to legal action. "That includes repetition of what was stated there," she said.

But she is not interested in financial gain from the lies put about. She simply wants her detractors to take responsibility for what they have done.

Radcliffe's statement, a categorical denial of ever having cheated in any way, was followed by an impassioned and emotional BBC radio interview with her husband, Gary Lough. "What has been more stressful is the whispers, the finger pointing and the innuendo that she has had to deal with in the lead-up to this," he said.

The head of the World Anti-Doping Agency laboratory in Lausanne, who reviewed the data with which a Sunday newspaper broke the storm over his wife – prompting threats of legal action from the International Association of Athletics Federations – characterised the interpretation as "abusive" as well as "intellectually dishonest and scientifically biased".

I have no knowledge of what Mr Norman may have done on his school playing fields at Eton, but it has ill-prepared him to deal with sport doping. One might have thought a minister of state would have been better briefed. What is the expression "under suspicion for very high levels of doping" meant to mean?

It betrays that he and his advisers do not even understand the terminology, which will undermine faith in the select committee system.

Radcliffe has not been convicted of doping. Her so-called "abnormal scores" do not constitute an offence. Nor are they "high level". Her three "off scores" as they are properly known, were 114.86, 109.86 and 109.3. They were followed up by the IAAF with no adverse result.

Any score above 103 by a female can trigger further investigation, but at altitude the threshold rises from 103 to 111.7. The readings were taken after periods of altitude training, so were out of context. Anti-doping guidelines say they should not be taken within two hours of competition. Yet two were immediately post-race, and so were invalid. The highest was compromised by 84-degree heat, causing dehydration.

With Radcliffe's identity concealed, the data was presented to WADA's Lausanne laboratory, the head of which said the post-race readings "would not be validated, and then not be implemented in a real biological passport. Therefore, I consider that any interpretation of this profile, which would be done by ignoring the confounding factors cited above, is abusive. Furthermore, any interpretation . . . can be considered to my eyes as intellectually dishonest and scientifically biased".

Double Olympic champion, Lord Coe warned against "witch hunts" and questioned whether politicians should be "making judgements" on blood data information. For his pains he is also being summoned to appear before this committee, a veritable Court of Star Chamber where reputations are dragged through the mud.

In 2002, Radcliffe won the World Cross-Country title, London Marathon, Commonwealth and European track gold, and the Chicago marathon in world record time. During this spree, I was grilled along with other UK journalists about the credibility of her performances.

The inquirer, Stefan L'Hermitte of the French sports paper L'Equipe, proceeded to write, without reference to the opinions he had sought, that Radcliffe's performances were suspect, and insinuated that she had doped. Fluent in French, Radcliffe phoned him at home. He maintained he was entitled to the opinions he expressed, but gave what she described as "a half-hearted verbal apology".

More pertinently, Radcliffe confirmed yesterday that after she smashed the 16-year-old European record for 10,000 metres in 2002, she requested the IAAF freeze her blood samples so that future advances would permit retesting to demonstrate she was clean.

"However the issue is that once I do that, I have no control over them whatsoever, where they are stored or when they are retested.

"Frozen samples are retested on a regular basis. For example, I think I am allowed to confirm that my Helsinki '05 samples [where she won the World title] were just recently retested again with others, as better EPO tests come in. They were of course negative. What I have done is waive the 10-year rule, to confirm that my samples can continue to be retested past the 10-year threshold now in place. This is of course providing there remains enough left to keep retesting!"

Radcliffe has always been a crusading anti-doping campaigner. In 2001 I chatted to her while she held an anti-doping placard at the World Championships in Edmonton. As they say, even the devil can cite scripture, but it strikes me compellingly that the last thing any dope cheat would do is store their samples for future investigation, and then waive the right to have them destroyed.

It took years, incidentally, but two of the Russians in the race we were watching (including the gold medallist) were later suspended for doping.

Yesterday, as he prepared for today's Great North City Games, world and Olympic long jump champion Greg Rutherford confirmed he had been accused of doping by fellow competitors. And the builder helping his father install a long jump pit at his home recently said: "Well, everybody’s on drugs, Greg included, surely."

WADA, the world athletics body, and Olympic movement must work harder to prevent the doping process stigmatising the innocent.