As you write
$$ rad(G) = \min_{v\in V} \max_{w\in V} d(v,w)$$
and
$$ diam(G) = \max_{v\in V} \max_{w\in V} d(v,w).$$
Suppose that the diameter is realized by $v',w'$, then $diam(G) = d(v', w')$. Also assume that $rad(G)$ is realized at $v''$, that is, $rad(G) = \max_{w\in V} d(v'',w)$.
By triangle inequality:
$$ d(v',w') \le d(v',v'') + d(v'', w') \le 2\max_{w\in V} d(v'',w) = 2rad(G).$$
Let's go through this step-by-step.
Proof. Let $C$ be a shortest cycle in $G$. If $g(G) \ge 2 \operatorname{diam}(G) + 2$, then $C$ has two vertices whose distance in $C$ is at least $\operatorname{diam}(G) + 1$.
All that we need here is to take an arbitrary vertex $v$ on $C$, then take $\operatorname{diam}(G)+1$ steps around the cycle to get to a second vertex $w$. Going the other way around the cycle, we'd need $g(G) - (\operatorname{diam}(G)+1)$ steps to get from $v$ to $w$, which is also at least $\operatorname{diam}(G)+1$.
In $G$, these vertices have a lesser distance...
So, first of all, this is always the relationship we expect when $C$ is a subgraph of $G$. When we go from the subgraph $C$ to the entire graph $G$, all the $v$-$w$ paths that existed in $C$ still exist in $G$, so in particular whatever the shortest path was in $C$, it still exists in $G$. The shortest path in $G$ is at least as short as that, possibly shorter! So the distance between $v$ and $w$ can only decrease.
In this particular case, we also know that the distance between $v$ and $w$ in $G$ is at most $\operatorname{diam}(G)$, because that's part of the definition of the diameter: all distances in $G$ are at most $\operatorname{diam}(G)$.
...any shortest path $P$ between them is therefore not a subgraph of $C$.
There is a $v$-$w$ path in $G$ of length $\operatorname{diam}(G)$, but in $C$, the shortest $v$-$w$ path has length $\operatorname{diam}(G)+1$. Therefore a shortest $v$-$w$ path in $G$ cannot be contained in $C$; it must use at least one edge outside $C$. Fix a particular shortest $v$-$w$ path, and call it $P$.
Thus, $P$ contains a $C$-path $x P y$.
I feel like this is glossing over several details, in particular, what $x$ and $y$ are.
Since $P$ is not contained in $C$, it must use at least one edge outside $C$. So:
- Starting at $v$, there is some initial segment of $P$ (possibly empty) where it follows edges of $C$; let $x$ be the end of that initial segment. If the initial segment where $P$ follows edges of $C$ is empty, we'll have $x=v$.
- From $x$, $P$ leaves the cycle $C$, but eventually it has to return, because $P$'s ultimate destination is $w$, a vertex on $C$. Let $y$ be the first time after $x$ that $P$ visits a vertex of $C$. (It's possible that $y=w$, and it's possible that this happens earlier.)
We let $x P y$ be the segment of $P$ beginning at $x$ and ending at $y$. By construction, $x P y$ shares no edges with $C$, and no vertices other than $x$ and $y$.
Together with the shorter of the two $x$-$y$ paths in $C$, this path $x P y$ forms a shorter cycle than $C$, a contradiction. $\square$
We construct a new cycle - call it $C'$ - by following $x P y$ from $x$ to $y$, then following $C$ from $y$ back to $x$, in whatever the shorter direction is.
By assumption, the length of $C$ is $g(G)$, and by a further assumption, $g(G) \ge 2\operatorname{diam}(G)+2$. In particular, $g(G)$ is strictly bigger than $2\operatorname{diam}(G)$.
On the other hand, the length of $x P y$ is at most $\operatorname{diam}(G)$ (because it's at most the length of $P$). The length of the shorter path in $C$ going from $y$ back to $x$ is at most $\frac12 g(G)$. Therefore the length of $C'$ is at most $\operatorname{diam}(G) + \frac12 g(G)$.
Since $g(G) > 2 \operatorname{diam}(G)$, we have $\frac12 g(G) > \operatorname{diam}(G)$, so $$g(G) > \operatorname{diam}(G) + \frac12 g(G),$$ which exactly says that the length of $C$ is greater than the length of $C'$. This is a contradiction, because $C$ is supposed to be a shortest cycle in $G$, and here is $C'$ being shorter.
Best Answer
Let $y$ be a central vertex of $G$. Let $a, b$ be two vertices of $G$ such that $d_G(a,b) = diam(G)$. By triangular inequality: $diam(G) \le d_G(a, y) + d_G(y,b) \le rad(G) + rad(G) = 2 rad(G)$.
Your argument for $rad(G) \le diam(G)$ is valid to me. Doing the formal calcul is overkill.