Could Paul Edwards, thrower banned for life, be telling the truth?

The letter below would seem to suggest Professor Cowan was asked and trusted to answer honestly if any information that had been withheld was of any importance. Why would they be asking the person who seemed to be a big part of the reason the information was withheld originally? Is this not akin to asking him to incriminate himself?

Am I misinterpreting something here?

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6f0LPZ-uUKqaXZLRE13Um41X3BJalRSMWRRV0ljbkRBRnJF

Lean Cuisine wrote:

The letter below would seem to suggest Professor Cowan was asked and trusted to answer honestly if any information that had been withheld was of any importance. Why would they be asking the person who seemed to be a big part of the reason the information was withheld originally? Is this not akin to asking him to incriminate himself?

Am I misinterpreting something here?

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6f0LPZ-uUKqaXZLRE13Um41X3BJalRSMWRRV0ljbkRBRnJF

This letter appears to show UK Sport manipulating the response from David Cowen to cover up the fact that over 600 pages of new evidence that had eventually had to be released contained nothing new .

This working together to manipulate justice has in other circumstances been called a conspiracy .

Further, to ask Cowen to agree that ,in effect , Cowen himself had done nothing wrong is outstanding example distortion of any justice .

How on earth can this process be independent and fair .

What now appears more interesting is not the original error , however caused , but the persistent working together of all the agencies to provide mutually sustainable cover ups .

Most of the people involved have gone on to much higher things . Two of them are involved in establishing the clean up of Russian doping .

I must correct something that I may have implied .

There still has not been any response to Simon Davis’ paper that followed the eventual release of 600 pages if withheld data .

The letter from Joseph ( Uks ) that has just been posted was an attempt to close the case down .

This then resulted in protracted work and eventual action by the Freedom of Info Office to get the 600 pages which then led to the Davis paper ; which to repeat ; has yet to be responded to .

In fact Professor Cowan did respond to a few selected points in Dr Simon Davis's report but the answers were superficial and did not come anywhere near dealing with the lack of validity of the testing which was full of ruinous errors and omissions. Unfortunately, he also failed to correct earlier statements dating from the test in 1997 that the GC-MS assay was calibrated although that was a specific deadly criticism by Dr Davis. Instead the Professor wrote a letter in 2004 insisting that the work was calibrated and that the calibration data was used for quantification purposes. All this under the letter's title "Paul Edwards" which was supplied in evidence to Parliament for the infamous debates in which Parliament was misinformed about the treatment of Paul (criminal charges for misleading Parliament warranted?)!! As we now know it was not until 2009 that KCL and the Professor admitted that the test was not calibrated at all. This admission was only forced out of them by the Freedom of Information Commissioner's Office when the fourth spurious pretext for refusing to supply the vital (but non-existent) data was rejected. Words fail me on that now.

Don't hold your breath for any defence of this debacle from the authorities. You have seen the documents proving irrefutably that the sampling was valueless and the testing equally pointless. What we need now is for them to put things right but perhaps admitting the errors, failures and cover-ups is not to be expected from people who behaved as they did in

the first place.

Can’t really understand what has been going on but one thing is clear .

This is that seems clear that if this had been a criminal case it would have been dropped and actions taken to disapline those who have manipulated the evidence .

This does not mean that I think Edwards is innocent but that the evidence does pass muster .

I thought that they admitted they had not got the calibration data, not that it was not calibrated. One is just a matter of recording the other much more serious. What did they actually admit?

Not Calibrated

Not calibrated as various people have Said already

At the hearing the Chair Max Beloff noted that the calibration data was missing and he would have liked to see such .

He received an assurance from that they existed and were in order . However we now know that this was not true .

Thus the cover up started from Day One .

Michael not Max!

Need Action wrote:

Michael not Max!

You are right ; close friends call him Max from time to time , but it is correct that in this context we should have said Michael .

Come what may Beloff was told the calibration data existed and was in full order . He then acted on this assumption in his ruling but was not told the truth .

150 k spent on court case .apparently 3 governing bodies said was not public money but sponsor money

Paul edwards wrote:

150 k spent on court case .apparently 3 governing bodies said was not public money but sponsor money

What would you think has been spent out of public funds ,over all the years ,keeping you banned and thus covering up the errors of Kings College ?

There's a real possibility that UKAD simply can not afford to have Paul's case overturned. If it's true he's innocent and the courts were to rule in Paul's favor, he would naturally be entitled to a great deal of compensation.

As you can see in this article below about Tyson Fury, losing cases where the damages are in the millions of pounds can potentially lead to bankruptcy unless the government were to bail them out. In such cases, UKAD basically can not admit fault or wrongdoing out of interest of it's own survival.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/boxing/41899478

Lean Cuisine wrote:

There's a real possibility that UKAD simply can not afford to have Paul's case overturned. If it's true he's innocent and the courts were to rule in Paul's favor, he would naturally be entitled to a great deal of compensation.

As you can see in this article below about Tyson Fury, losing cases where the damages are in the millions of pounds can potentially lead to bankruptcy unless the government were to bail them out. In such cases, UKAD basically can not admit fault or wrongdoing out of interest of it's own survival.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/boxing/41899478

What a great point.

In the Modahl case she did not get money for the foul up by the Lisbon lab as it was determined that due process eventually worked .But she did not have enough money to press the case for compensation fully.

Tyson Fury does .

In the Edwards case they have been dependent on Edwards having no money .

If the Fury case means that doping control incompetence causes compensation then Edwards may get cleared on his coat tails .

Lawyers told me that a while ago it must be Well over 1 1/2 million benefactors have spent well over half million on for me.

So two million pounds that could have gone elsewhere in sport being spent on a what could be a giant cover up .

Why was Michael Beloff not given the proper answers to chain of custody. no calibration why was the hearing at this time conducted when Nicola Sapsted assistant secretary to David Cowan told my experts six pages of evidence existed when actually 600 pages of information was in existence and now Nicola Sapsted is the Chief Executive of United Kingdom Anti doping

Paul edwards wrote:

Why was Michael Beloff not given the proper answers to chain of custody. no calibration why was the hearing at this time conducted when Nicola Sapsted assistant secretary to David Cowan told my experts six pages of evidence existed when actually 600 pages of information was in existence and now Nicola Sapsted is the Chief Executive of United Kingdom Anti doping

Can you provide the evidence that Sapstead told your experts in the discovery process that only six pages existed .

If this is true one would assume she should now resign .

After all she is now in charge of checking out if Russia is still lying about their drug control .