While at a rugby conference at the University of Brighton last week, I noticed the newspapers were plastered with stories of Paula Radcliffe, the women's world record holder in the marathon and a legend in women's sport, defending herself against doping allegations.
It all began when an initial whistleblower within the International Association of Athletics Federation's (IAAF) anti-doping unit wanting to draw attention to the inaction over suspicious blood data results over 10 years.
British MP Jesse Norman then clumsily outed Radcliffe as the ''successful British athlete'' whose blood data was also under scrutiny.
Radcliffe's reaction since that moment has been excellent fodder for the British tabloids.
During her long and illustrious running career, Radcliffe made frequent and very public condemnations of the use of performance-enhancing drugs in athletics.
During the heats of the 5000m race at the 2001 World Athletics Championships, for instance, Radcliffe and her team-mate, Hayley Tullett, held up a sign protesting the reinstatement of Russian athlete Olga Yegorova, who had tested positive for the banned substance EPO.
Since 1999, Radcliffe wore a red ribbon when competing to show her support for blood testing as a method of catching drug cheats and she also asked for blood test results taken at the London Marathon to be made public, saying that she had ''absolutely no objection'' to her results being released.
So why the sudden case of shyness and resistance to having her blood data results put under scrutiny?
She has received a lot of backlash from the public, the media, and some sporting officials for her lack of transparency.
If an athlete is going to be quick to judge others and take the moral high ground then they should expect to get a bit of backlash at the slightest hint of cheating.
In some cases, identifying and catching drug cheats is relatively clear-cut, but as the chemistry and techniques used for doping get more complicated, so, too, does the balance of proof.
Sports such as athletics and rugby are starting to collect data on athletes over several years so that comparisons between ''normal'' and ''abnormal'' levels for athletes can be made.
These biological and blood passports are quickly becoming a necessary part of athletic baggage.
It is difficult to understand why Radcliffe is so upset by the call for her to be transparent about her results over the years.
Is she afraid that the average person will not be able to understand that there is a mix of science and subjectivity required to interpret these results?
Is she scared that she will be exposed as an anomaly among female athletes and her femininity will be questioned?
Is it because she feels she has to defend her innocence when she was never accused of cheating in the first place?
Or is she really hiding something because those who tend to protest the most have the most to lose?Whatever her reasons, she hasn't managed to silence the debate.
After the Lance Armstrong saga, we are all much more sceptical about athletic performance.
If she really is a clean athlete, and she trusts the system to interpret the results in a fair and just way, she should hand over her data and cross the finish line of her athletic career with a clean record and conscience.
