Last week saw one of the more entertaining, if ultimately fruitless episodes, as the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee of the British Parliament met in London to discuss blood doping. Representatives from the World and UK Anti-Doping Agencies were present as witnesses, along with Dr. Michael Ashenden, an independent expert who helped the Sunday Times study leaked data.  

Given the scale of the problem, any public discussion on doping is a good thing, although like many others I did not quite comprehend the point or exact aims of the Select Committee.

The Panel of Members of Parliament (MPs) seemed reasonably well informed, although you could certainly question their expertise to challenge people like WADA director general David Howman in the manner they did. They did focus predominantly on the impact in Britain, and on events therein such as the London Marathon, but it was hard to see their reason for debating problems in Russia and Kenya, and what they could do about it regardless of their conclusions.

Some have suggested the whole project is an attempt to gain good publicity and to be seen as taking strong action on an issue the public feel strongly about. Given the promotional work by the MPs on Twitter before and after, there may be some truth in this view, although, if so, they seem to have failed spectacularly.

At the time I did not think there was anything particularly controversial about Committee chair Jesse Norman’s comments about “potentially the winners or medallists at the London Marathon...potentially British athletes”, being "under suspicion for very high levels of blood doping”, and I did not think he was trying to deliberately “out” British distance-running darling Paula Radcliffe.

With hindsight it is harder to tell, but I am still not absolutely convinced Norman was knowingly “using the cloak of Parliamentary privilege” - in which British MPs enjoy legal immunity in order to carry out their duties without interference - as suggested.

Yet it was certainly naive of him not to expect a connection to be drawn, and his blaming of the media for acting like a “herd of ungulates” was ridiculous for several reasons.

Firstly, it is the journalist’s job to make an exciting story. Yes, we should not quote something utterly unrepresentative and out of context, but to focus around one-line in this way is fine. And while impressive, his use of the rather wonderful term “ungulates”, a description for a hoofed animal virtually nobody had heard of before, only added to the impression that Norman was out of touch with the way the real world works.

Secondly, it is hard to see how we hacks provoked Radcliffe into making the statement. A couple of other journalists present tweeted what Norman had said, as they had been throughout the three-hour discussion, but no-one else appeared too excited about it either, and no articles had appeared mentioning it until after her explosive 1,700 words statement popped into our inboxes later in the afternoon.

Which makes me think there was something pre-planned and calculated about the statement, crafted as it was by her extensive team of supporters. It certainly did a good job of making her out to be the victim, suggesting the MPs supposedly abusing their rights were the villains. Time will tell if it was actually a good move on her part or if she would have been better staying quiet.

Unlike many other journalists covering the story, I do not know Radcliffe personally. But she was always one of my sporting heroes growing up and I have lost count of the number of times I have argued with people who described her as a “quitter” or a "failure" for never winning an Olympic medal.

When she was taken off Lottery Funding in 2012, I wrote a piece for a student newspaper praising her, concluding that: "She is an idol for the benefits of hard work, perseverance and a stubborn refusal to abandon a dream, and for being the glorious antithesis of a world of Lance Armstrongs".

And when she sat down on the same table as me to have lunch in the press-room during the Anniversary Games at the end of my first week at insidethegames, it was one of the only times I have been overwhelmed and rendered virtually speechless by the presence of a famous face.

But now I find myself less sure, and, much as I have no idea as to the truth of the allegations, I will always have that nagging doubt at the back of my mind.

As many have written, this is unfair because all athletes accused of doping should be innocent until proven guilty.

Yet I find myself feeling less sympathetic towards Radcliffe than some. For a start she has acted strangely, going through her career speaking out so strongly against all dopers yet lashing out unreservedly now the tables have begun to turn, accusing the Sunday Times of “behaviour tantamount to blackmail”.

I also still don’t really understand her reasons for not releasing her blood results in full, with the line that it could help others to learn how to cheat coming across as weak and insufficient.

It is not the media or the public’s fault that some no-doubt-innocent athletes are being accused, but the many who have lied and deceived us about doping should be blamed for gradually eroding our trust. It is only natural we should be more sceptical.

Radcliffe's defence and explanations behind her values do seem valid but neither does it categorically prove anything and experts like Ashenden have repeatedly denied the view, in a broad sense rather than specifically in relation to Radcliffe, that there were other explanations for the high blood levels recorded. I am not versed in the science enough to comment further, although a full release of her data would allow greater insight.

Given this, it has surprised me how quickly so many people have been to jump to her complete defence. Are people not being hypocritical given how they have warned of not drawing precise conclusions from incomplete evidence? And would people act the same way if the accused was not a popular British household name but a Russian, or a Kenyan? I think not...

Even Britain’s other greater distance runner Mo Farah did not receive this support when he too was associated with doping due to the allegations surrounding his coach and training partner earlier this year.

New International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) President Sebastian Coe was right-in-part to warn of a “McCarthyesque witch-hunt” as the fallout continued, but was it right for the head of the IAAF to speak out so strongly in this fashion?

In my view, Coe’s statement that the Sunday Times has “declared war on his sport” was an error, and there is now a danger that journalists are being painted as the villains of the piece. But look at virtually every major doping scandal in history and it is journalists - occasionally with help from the United States' law - that have exposed them rather than the authorities.

Governing bodies should thus be working with rather than against the media, and statements like Coe’s could not only turn people against important stories, but dissuade potential whistle-blowers from emerging.

So while the last week has ultimately proved nothing, and just to reiterate I am not for a minute accusing Radcliffe of being guilty, the furore should give us pause for thought and remind us how we should treat all cases objectively, and try not to draw rash conclusions either way.