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

Shampoo....lol....lol....lol....

These drug cheats are so creative....

truthseakr wrote:

Shampoo....lol....lol....lol....

These drug cheats are so creative....

At least get the urban myth right before you comment without a clue what you are talking about.

Imbecile troll.

The great shampoo stories.

I always thought it suspicious that coaches and parents would need to pass shampoo bottles to their charges when they entered the toilet/shower area to give a urine sample. Remember these where the days without the strict viewing of urinating.

It was common knowledge and many a pint of beer was shared joking over it.

I would be very surprised if those at the top of the sport have forgotten about this wonderful tactic as it was so well known.The poor USSR athletes did not have shampoo and thus their cleanliness caused much worry.

There was Another case with Mark Hilton 400 meter runner where Prof Cowan only omitted he got the test wrong when the head of the tribunal told him . Then he said oh it’s an oversight on my part .

Fair wrote:

There was Another case with Mark Hilton 400 meter runner where Prof Cowan only omitted he got the test wrong when the head of the tribunal told him . Then he said oh it’s an oversight on my part .

I think the panel told Cowen that his error and more so his persistence with the error was xxxxxxxx.

The case collapsed at that very point.

How was Cowen been allowed to give expert witness testimony ever again?

I don’t really understand the ethics of publishing in journals but should Cowen be slowed to do so; I really I don’t know the answer.

Prof Cowan Annualised the wrong iron .

Fair wrote:

Prof Cowan Annualised the wrong iron .

The wrong ion!!

That is the most basic simple schoolboy error !

Just like not doing the calibration data in the Edwards case.

I also have read on the forum that there was not enough urine to do the analysis so under Cowen’s control more urine was found from somewhere and someone.

I’ve read through the thread as best I can and there is very scant evidence offered fir the first test,or should I say first 2 tests as didn’t Paul actually fail tests in Helsinki and the UK in s matter of days.

I would be grateful if one of the several posters who are clearly actively involved in Mr Edward’s defence or Mr Edwards himself could publish the 1994 decision and the defence proferred by Mr Edwards at the time.

I know Michelle likes to talk about it being irrelevant. But I stress again that this thread is clearly being used by several people in the Edwatdscamp to try to get public support and if the first conviction is valid then most would think he’s drugcheating scum and shouldn’t be given any support.

I’m not interested in more one sided ramblings, just put up the original decision from 94, information about the two failed tests in a few days and what your defence was.

As I say a polygraph would be very interesting. For some reason the focus seems to be more on proving that there is a chance the tests gave the wrong result. If that’s your argument then get back to court and stop trying to fight this case in the court of public opinion. If you insist on fighting fighting for public support then prove the first TWO failed tests were faulty and take a polygraph.

Started data protection act request .2 years later had to reply so health and safety explanations -

This request was under the data protection act and where they said you cannot have the evidence because it would be a danger to your health . Several other excuses too hard to photocopy it’s not your data it’s personal to kcl.

The details of the 94 tests and the rationale and validity got lost on the steps of the high court when Edwards got reinstated.

I believe that it was this reinstatement that could not be accepted and it was the special reinstatement test in 97 that has caused the problems.

I take the view that the focus should be on this test as the way it was done and the cover ups say far more about the Anti-Doping system than it does about Edwards.This is compounded by vast public sums spent and Parliament being grossly misinformed.

A polygraph for an event in 94 ,at £800 ,that would not be accepted by the authorities is an expensive diversion.

I think that the public would be more interested In a Polygraph for those at the lab to find out exactly what happened to Edwards’ sample.

I’m a member of the public and I would rather have a polygraph on Mr Edwards.

You think £800 is an expensive distraction, this ridiculous campaign has cost tax payers more than that taking it to Parliament, which was a pointless distraction. If you don’t want the cost then get him on Kyle. Won’t cost you a penny and would give your campaign loads of publicity. But would you risk it knowing that you don’t get to dictate that the first ban isn’t discussed?

I had two MPs several lawyers scientific experts in their field is all saying how bad this case was.And they were totally independent of me and a benefactor so it was all creditable .

Ultraboy. wrote:

I’m a member of the public and I would rather have a polygraph on Mr Edwards.

You think £800 is an expensive distraction, this ridiculous campaign has cost tax payers more than that taking it to Parliament, which was a pointless distraction. If you don’t want the cost then get him on Kyle. Won’t cost you a penny and would give your campaign loads of publicity. But would you risk it knowing that you don’t get to dictate that the first ban isn’t discussed?

You can raise other tests on an post title ; feel free.

How can it be rediculous to talk about the gross failure of a lab.

How can it be rediculous to go to Parliament about the functions of a public body.

This is a complicated scientific debate ,that you pointibly have refused to engage with, do you really think that Kyle and his social failures and nutters would have a debate with the other key players present? If you could get Michelle Veroken , Baroness Campbell , Prof Cowen ,Roger Draper ,Nicole Sapstead et al present then I think that would be truly magnificent.

I’m not saying have the other key players present. I’m saying put Paul on there to face a grilling and present his case and go through a polygraph on whether he took drugs.

You are on here presenting your case like this is a court. It’s not. Neither is Parliament. Except obviously when asked for details about the first TWO tests and the original ban then there are none forthcoming. Apparently the paperwork was mislaid on the steps of the high court when he was re-instated. Can you direct me to the information on that high court case. I can’t find any reference to it only to the 1997 IAAF decision to change to 2 years and allow reinstatement of those who had already served half of any 4 year ban. Did Paul actually have to go to high court to get reinstated?

If you want public support for a guy who failed 3 tests and recieved 2 bans then show all 3 were incorrect. Much like I couldn’t give a crap if Venables and Thompson are attacked in prison I also couldn’t care less if a drug cheat got a longer ban than the rules suggested. I feel I’m not unique in that, especially in the UK.

The thing is jumping up and down about a 30 year old procedure run by bodies that no longer run the sport isn’t going to change the process now. It’s already changed. So since Paul isn’t going to get those competitive years back it’s really about clearing his name as a drugs cheat, which in my mind means you need to show all 3 tests were wrong.

The Kyle programme depends on both sides being present and I think the polygraphs for all involved in the test in question would be wonderful .

All the organisations that are running doping today had significant fingers in the Edwards case .Only

Michelle V got fired ; and to this day we know not why.

We are in the era of righting historical abuse so the Edwards case is still pertinent.

I note that you are keen on prison violence and have no interst in the rule of law so I would assume that Edwards would be content to have you on the Cowen et al side of the Kyle TV great multi polygraph showdown.

Forgot to say that Edwards wants to do some sport again ; which is another reason to concentrate on the injustices caused by the labs failure to carry out the test correctly.

Remember in the Hylton case Cowen monitored the wrong ion and lab mistakes are not marginal bits of irrelevance.

In this case there was no calibration and urine substitution.

Now we see your real colours. Pretend to be all about truth and justice but quite happy to misrepresent things for your cause. “Keen on prison violence”. I didn’t say anything of the sort. I ambivalent to violence against some offenders who seem to have gotten off lightly. Should those who do it get charges- yes, but don’t expect me to get upset by it.

I also see you are mad keen on the process being followed. However you also seem keen to ignore that there is an appeals process and a legal process for challenging this decision and they have been exhausted. You are no longer in he realms of arguing process. You are in the realms of public opinion. In order to win in that realm you need people to have sympathy for your guy.

If you want to gain public support for your campaign then going on Jeremy Kyle would be a really public way to do so. I don’t understand why there is any notion that this would not be a great idea, other than there is a bloody good chance Mr Edwards would be shown to be a drug cheat. I think you know that if the 1994 tests are shown to be correct then support for your campaign would not be there.

It seems to me that your side of this argument are absolutely desperate to ignore the first ban. If he’s innocent of that offence then he’d have my support and I suspect the support of many other people. Mr Edwards almost admitted as much previously in interview. He knows people will point to the 1994 ban, but nothing is being done to deal with that other than completely ignoring it. That’s fine in court, but this isn’t court and you’ve exhausted the courts.

So rather than trying to misrepresent what I’ve said why don’t you deal with that first ban.

What you have said about it doesn’t quite ring true. So I am after clarification. Did Mr Edwards contestboth tests in 1994? Were they conducted at separate facilities? What was he shown to have taken? What was Mr Edwards defence at the time?

The glossing over of things seems deliberate. I asked about the details of the 94 tests the charges, decision and what Mr Edwards defence was at the time. You said “The details of the 94 tests and the rationale and validity got lost on the steps of the high court when Edwards got reinstated.” As far as I can make out that’s not quite in the spirit of of openness that you espouse. The only case Mr Edwards seems to have taken to High Court in the 94 case was one arguing that he shouldn’t be banned for 4 years as some countries only banned for 2. He lost by the way.

Now rather than more obsfucation can one of you please answer the questions.

What was Mr Edwards defence to the 94 charges?

Were there 2 separate failed tests conducted by separate institutions?

What evidence does Mr Edwards have that the tests were not correct?

And for that matter:

Why was Mr Edwards challenging a point of law rather than proclaiming his innocence in his 94 action?

In the spirit of openness would all posters who have been actively involved in Paul’s case also please declare their interest so it is possible for readers to understand how much of this debate is a concerted effort by that group of people rather than a debate between disinterested parties?

I am happy to confirm I am nothing to do with this case, doping control or any governing body or other organisation involved in this or any ther doping case. Other than I used to be a runner and have therefor been registered as an athlete with EA.