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

iF The tests were done today knowing the rules the Internet ETC this wouldn’t of happened.

Paul, you are wasting your time answering Ultraboy. UKAD etc know very well that they have no leg to stand on regarding the 1997 test for which you were banned for life because you have the data and hundreds of items of correspondence. They also know that there is no such data set from 1994 because you were not able to get many documents then and they are certainly not going to publish the full car crash data from 1994 now. So Ultraboy will try to ignore 1997 and keep banging on about 1994 because absolute proof of what they did then is not in your hands. You will never convince this chap who is obviously no friend of fair play and justice and I suspect literally on the other side.

Need Action wrote:

Paul, you are wasting your time answering Ultraboy. UKAD etc know very well that they have no leg to stand on regarding the 1997 test for which you were banned for life because you have the data and hundreds of items of correspondence. They also know that there is no such data set from 1994 because you were not able to get many documents then and they are certainly not going to publish the full car crash data from 1994 now. So Ultraboy will try to ignore 1997 and keep banging on about 1994 because absolute proof of what they did then is not in your hands. You will never convince this chap who is obviously no friend of fair play and justice and I suspect literally on the other side.

I fully agree; ultraboy( aka biggut) is well known for being the antipathy of evidence based arguments.

All the points about 94 have been explained as best they can given the absence of document packages and a high street lawyer who reaslised she was out of her depth and withdrew part of the way.

Helskinki was never processed because Helsinki chose not too. Edwards has to provide nothing in this regard.

The evidence of bad practice by Cowen is fully documented.

The tactics by the authorities in covering up the latter is fully documented.

This is enough , regardless of the 94 foul ups, to remove the ban.

Paul ed wrote:

No when my experts at the time we’re going to Helsinki to exam test the b test had already been done without my knowledge so the experts were working on the London test. There was a paper done in 1994 by Professor Makin and Taylor dealing with this .but new lawyer wanted to concentrated on the London test. At this time very little knowledge existed to find the right experts and lawyers.

Sorry this hasn’t answered my question on the Makin and Taylor paper. I’m trying to ascertain whether your evidence against the 1994 uk based test was already submitted in appealing the 1994 ban or whether it is new.

You appear to be saying that the 1994 UK test was refuted by you using the report from Makin and Taylor but that this evidence was not considered compelling and you were banned. Is this the case?

Makin/ Taylor presented a paper which covered both Helsinki and London in 94 .Prior to the paper appearing iHelsinki made their own decision not to progress the Helsinki test. Helsinki had their own reasons and such was never disclosed . The High Street solicitor failed to submit a defence for the London 94 test .So even though the makin/Taylor paper condemning the testAnd asking for hidden evidence did exist it was never submitted. Consequence of no defence being submitted there was the four year ban . No opportunity for an appeal was offered .Within two years or so an other lawyer looked at the case and two things resulted.A request for a appeal based on makin/TaylorWith the rest of the evidence to be provided and that the four year ban be reduced to two. The IAAF had by this time agreed to reduce the ban so the whole matter of the “appeal against conviction “became irrelevant and died .

You didn’t appeal against conviction yet you did mountba high court case that failed on the grounds that you didn’t think it fair that other countries only banned fir 2 years yet you had been banned for 4. Why bring a case arguing a technicality rather than one asserting your innocence if you had compelling evidence?

A man only has so much time and money.

Ultraboy wrote:

You didn’t appeal against conviction yet you did mountba high court case that failed on the grounds that you didn’t think it fair that other countries only banned fir 2 years yet you had been banned for 4. Why bring a case arguing a technicality rather than one asserting your innocence if you had compelling evidence?

Ultraboy wrote:

You didn’t appeal against conviction yet you did mountba high court case that failed on the grounds that you didn’t think it fair that other countries only banned fir 2 years yet you had been banned for 4. Why bring a case arguing a technicality rather than one asserting your innocence if you had compelling evidence?

Ultraboy: biggut

I wish you could read !

Edwards was not offered an appeal , what part of that do you not understand !

In those days the default position was that the hearing was an appeal.

You obviously have limited or selective memory.

Court cases cost a lot of money , to the point that Modahl nearly went bankrupt (certainly had to sell her house)and it made Athletics go bust.

If there is a less costly and more likely chance of competing again you go for that and take the advice of those supporting you.

Further the athletics governing body refused to provide evidence ; yes even with that earlier case.

You are well beyond nit picking and simple refusing to read.

The core problem is with the 97 test with its many problems.

No calibration data

Hidden evidence

Substituted urine

Missing and contradictory chain of custody

You conspicuously refuse to make one comment or reaction about the test failings even though you have been invited to do so on multiple occasions.

Inference would be that you accept such failing existed.

Look I am asking for he questions I want to ask to find out about the 1994 tests and ban. If there was a process to appeal the 97 ban or get it reviewed again then insure Mr Edwards would have taken it. So why m going to make the assumption that legal options have been exhausted and the reason for this campaign is that you need public opinion to support changing the process to allow him to appeal the decision.

If it’s about public opinion then the 94 testis very much pertinent. So I am keen to find out what has and hasn’t been done.

When I tak about appealing I am referring to the High Vourt case brought by Mr Edwards, which was not arguing he was innocent but that he shouldn’t be banned for 4 years as other countries only banned for 2. I’m asking why his case wasn’t that he should not be banned at all, because the tests were faulty. I am asking this as it seems pertinent.

Well ultraboy / biggut.

You have had the answers to your “ pertinent “ questions and like your “ pertinent “ questions on other forums they are aimed at avoiding the question at hand. Further you also choose to avoid info that has already been provided .

Most people can do a few things at the same time, such as give some thought to the 94 situation whilst also the core central issue of the manifestly unreasonable ban in 97.

Having diverted the thread or tried to ( as you do in all other forums)you still refuse to apply yourself to the 97 failings.

Substation of urine

No calibration data

Hidden evidence

Chain of custody in tatters

Had a brief look at Google docs, I can’t find the alleged admission that there was no calibration done yet, but it is supposed to date from 2009. However I have seen the letter from Anne Cameron the Legal Compliance Officer of Kings College London in response to a data request. This clearly post dates the as yet unseen admission, and specifically states that data was previously held for both the date of the first and second tests, but as the requirement is to keep data for 8 years in the event of an adverse finding it is no longer available. This is document IMG_0653.PNG.

It seems that the college looked into it and far from saying that they did not calibrate they say they held the data for 8 years yet Mr Edwards seems to be relying on a recollection of something said prior to this investigation.

As such the position that they admit they did not calibrate seems to be a misrepresentation at best, and a deliberate lie at worst.

This is the problem with a One Sided Narrative, the evidence is often skewed.

I have neither the time or inclination to go through every document, but it does seem that I cannot just take the word of those involved.

Cameron clearly says that Kings never did contemporaneous data calibration on the athlete’s samples.

So that is the admission.

Further they had been requested on multiple times to provide the data but failed to do so quoting such as health protection for the athlete .

Together with the admission from Cameron that is conclusive.

Can you find that in the documents please, as I say the doc ref quoted above post dates the one you say exists and clearly states they had calibration data for both dates. That post dates the claimed words of Campbell, comes after an investigation and completely contradicts what you claim was said. I have pointed to the evidence on this but I am just supposed to take your word that they said differently in 2009 and that that is the true position.

One Sided Narrative wrote:

Can you find that in the documents please, as I say the doc ref quoted above post dates the one you say exists and clearly states they had calibration data for both dates. That post dates the claimed words of Campbell, comes after an investigation and completely contradicts what you claim was said. I have pointed to the evidence on this but I am just supposed to take your word that they said differently in 2009 and that that is the true position.

Sorry but I can’t make sense of what you are saying esp in relation to something by Campbell.

For avoidance of doubt the letter I refer to is by Cameron dated Dec 09 which states in three places that they never did calibration work on the samples presented to the hearing.

Yes 3 times!!

The letter by Cameron is fully in legal context as it is to the FOI and anything contrary to this would have put KCL in deep problems with FOI.

Also if they existed why did they not present them to the hearing or to previous requests persistantly made following the test and as promised by the sports minister in Parliament?

Can you tell me which document that is in the google docs package, I haven’t seen that yet. As I say Cameron clearly stated in December 2010 that they had done calibration, it is in the google docs under the red I quoted earlier. This was after they looked into it, and post dates the comment from 2009. So you say she says they didn’t do it in 2009, but after an investigation she says they did actually do it in 2010. So the latest position is they did do it. But you seem to want to rely on the older statement, that’s why I say it’s a one sided narrative, you ignore things which don’t suit your case.

One Sided Narrative wrote:

Can you tell me which document that is in the google docs package, I haven’t seen that yet. As I say Cameron clearly stated in December 2010 that they had done calibration, it is in the google docs under the red I quoted earlier. This was after they looked into it, and post dates the comment from 2009. So you say she says they didn’t do it in 2009, but after an investigation she says they did actually do it in 2010. So the latest position is they did do it. But you seem to want to rely on the older statement, that’s why I say it’s a one sided narrative, you ignore things which don’t suit your case.

Are you sure that the letter of Dec 10 does not refer to the extra analysis done on the sample AFTER it was declared positive and as such was submitted to the hearing.

The results of extra analysis may have had cal data done but as these results were hidden from the hearings and that they may have had the cal data done is irrelevant.Why was analysis that was done with cal data hidden away ?

The analysis that was presented to the hearing was admitted in Dec 09 as not having cal data done.

I am going to find out if/ where this letter is in the bundle. Please accept my assurance that I have a copy and would be pleased if I could get it on the forum.

This is deliberately misleading. KCL categorically stated in 2009 that they ran no contemporaneous calibration for Paul Edward's test or for other athletes around that time. They claimed to hold general calibration data some time before and some time after Edward's test . Judge Hughes of FOI tier 1 tribunal stated that it would be appropriate for Paul to be shown these data in the absence of data specific to his test. Paul duly asked KCL for it but was then told that they didn't hold it after all as they had destroyed it! This is all in documents I have seen.

Again I am pointing to a specific document in the pack, which post dates the 2009 comments, I can’t find the 2009 comments, people say they exist, but can’t find them at all. As to misleading, if they investigated in 2009 and 2010 and the conclusion was they did calibrate what is misleading about clarifying this? (As I say IF)

The letter in 2010 refers to calibration on the days of the analysis, it may well be they did calibration that day, but not specifically for the Edwards tests. The question then is were they required to do specific calibration for each test, or just daily calibration. If individual calibration was not required then the reply that they did not do calibration for a single test would be correct and entirely in line with the protocols. So what is needed is a copy of the protocols from 1997, and the exact questions and answers given in 2009. However I have not seen either of these yet.

It does appear that the panel included at least one world renowned expert, who I am sure will have known the protocols, so I am reluctant to believe that he got it wrong unless presented with evidence that the exact calibration that Kings College alledgely said they had not done was actually required by the protocols.

So many ifs and buts, and unlikely to be accurately portrayed with only one side represented.

Good try but wrong!

I have been refreshed on the letter of Dec 2010 and indeed that letter is in response to a later FOI asking for cal data for the extra analysis that was done.

I will take it as a simple error that you assumed the letter of Dec 10 was for the date of the actual analysis.

A schoolboy error .

The positive analysis reported and presented to the hearing was a month earlier .

The second request was related to the re run of the B sample and even more work on the A sample .Again not for that run for the analysis that was presented to the hearing.

The letter of Dec09 exists but is in photo of photo copy and I have such a copy. In this letter KCL states 3 times they did not ever have cal data and quotes a contemporaneous note on the records to that effect.

You make the point that the expert hearing panel should have spotted the problem. Indeed they did and was assured , by Cowen,that the work was done under the protocol ISO 17O25 and whilst not presented the cal data was in order as Cowen knew its importance .Further the evidence file does not have a single ref to Cal Data ; yet other tests at the same time have such conspicuously presented.

Thus at every turn over 20 years and supported by the Davis paper and FOI admissions there was no cal data