Paula Radcliffe needs to release the full data from her three 'abnormal' results if she wants to fully clear her name of doping, according to a leading sports scientist.
The 41-year-old marathon record holder has defended herself over the three results after her off-scores data was made public.
But Professor Ross Tucker, who runs the South Africa-based Science of Sport, says neither guilt nor innocence can be proved from those off-scores alone. Her full data over several years is needed to compare changes, he said.
SIGN UP NOW
Want to become a GMS writer? Sign up now and submit a 250 word test article: http://gms.to/haveyoursay4
Tucker, a professor of exercise physiology who studies east African runners, told Press Association Sport: "I feel some sympathy for Paula Radcliffe but just giving three off-scores is like only giving a third of the deck of cards. There is a lot more to it than that.
"It's an uncomfortable uncertainty. She has lost a lot of trust and the only way it can be earned back is to give the full data and tell everyone what the context was.
"There's no benefit from drip-feeding bits of information."
Radcliffe's off-scores were 114.86, 109.86 and 109.3 in three blood test results - any score above 103 recorded by a female athlete can trigger further investigation. Radcliffe said the results were explained by circumstances such as altitude training, which was why she had been cleared by the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF).
Tucker said Radcliffe's results were nothing like as high as Russian marathon runner Liliya Shobukhova who had an off-score of 153 - she has just completed a doping ban - but were still high.
He added: "Off-score values are only part of the picture, which is why releasing three off-scores is not conclusive of anything, even if they are close to those cut-off limits.
"The whole premise of the [athlete's biological] passport is to measure change over time."