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

It really isn't, I linked to his Facebook page, scroll through there is nothing showing as to or from Hogan.

I have found it on Google docs now.

It appears I am correct, this who calibration line is a massive distortion.

KCL clearly stated they ran calibration data.

They clearly stated that data would have most probably been destroyed as it is past 8 years.

They clearly state that the data is not part of the protocol, so not part of a cases package.

They clearly state they don't run calibration for athlete samples.

You see this is entirely consistent with speed guns.

Look at it this way, they don't re-calibrate speed guns after every test. Same with MS. If the court doesn't ask for the calibration data every time then the Police would not be expected to provide it or keep it on an individual file. If years later you queried the calibration and it was after the period you needed to keep it for it may have been destroyed. That would not mean that the gun was not calibrated in any way.

It is in no way an admission that the MS was not calibrated to the standards required at the time, no way at all. To interpret it as such requires a certain amount of bias.

On the "extra urine" don't know, then again unless the panel were unaware of what was tested I don't care. Their experts will have looked at the info provided, and they are qualified to judge the integrity of the test, that's why they had and continue to have world leading scientists on the panel.

With regard to the Veroken investigation by the Met, the letter referring to it no longer appears on the Google dive files, I don't know why, but lots of letters have seemingly been removed.

How many more times. KCL did not run calibration for Paul and stated this clearly to the FOI officer. It does matter as I have told you before because failure to do it invalidates the whole test. No competent analyst would need to be told this so it was not stated in the primitive protocols you refer to. Nowadays it is laid out clearly in the WADA documents just as it was in FDA and other reference documents in the 90s. Your apologist position is untenable.

Contemporaneous data work was not done.

It was a requirement of ISO 17025 which was the basis of the contract.

Beloff asked for them, as chair if hearings, and wac assured they existed.

The Minister said they existed.

You can’t assume that because there had been calibration at some point such would be applicable at the time of the tests.

The current wada regs require such and this indicated importance.

The tranc of cited papers say such.

The request for them was made very very early in the process. Well before any destruction took place.

Anyway they never did them , do there was nothing to destroy .

They ran full cal data for other tests at the time and produced such as evidence.

The letter makes ref to WADA but such did not exist at the time.

The IOC med code specifies that there must be correct ways to show retention times ; this has to include Cal Data as without such you have no idea what ion you are monitoring. Further you have no idea if there is contamination of the water blank being run through that day.

Thus whilst KCL said there was no protocol to do them this is very very misleading.

SOP’s where requested and refused.

The info ref extra substituted urine was within the 600 pages of hidden data and as such was never available for the panels to see. You have been told this as all the above many many times and most is fully referenced in the Davis paper.

As for the analogy with the police speed gun.There is a requirement for gun to be calibrated on a regular basis that reflects the chance of it being out.

If the calibration is not done according to the requirements the result is not valid.

Mass spec may have contaminations and the declared way of dealing with such is set out in the operating instructions of the machine ; such is Cowen’s declared way and the basis of ISO 17025.

He did not do this ; the test in not valid.

I am thinking how to grade your work if this was a school project.You have put your name on and your spelling is not too bad on the big words so you would not get naught but certainly a fail and not allowed to progress mainly on the basis of no understanding of the science involved.

You also fall into the trap of tautology , by assuming that the panel could not makes mistakes and thus has not.However this is a simple mistake for the simple minded and I won’t dwell on it too much but do ask that you avoid this next time.

I take from this the clear comment that you accept that KCL did not do calibration for athletes samples.

I note that the IOC Medical Code states that there should be procedures to ensure that the correct retention times are recorded.ie calibration data.

These was thus was a requirement for them,

KCL mislead the FOI that they were not needed,but actually this was of no concern to them as all they wanted was the cal data that the Minister And KCL said existed.

I think it would benefit the poster ,one sided narrative ,to read the above to decide if the absence of contemporaneous calibration data is compatable with asserting that retention times are correctly monitored.

Everyone on this thread is Paul....

If any of you can cite the relevant standard from 1997 for drug testing and the calibration of Mass Spectrometers great. By that I mean an actual copy of the regulations not your assumption of what it was.

Not running individual calibration is not the same as not having run contemporaneous calibration, do none of you understand that?

I have made no assumption on the procedures, it’s stated clearly in Paul’s correspondence that individual calibration data is not required by the protocols at the time, and KCL say they didn’t do it for individual samples.

As you can see from the FAQ of Kore (a manufacturer of mass spectrometers) calibration lasts a while.

https://www.kore.co.uk/ms200faq.htm#Faq13

They probably know what they are talking about even if you don’t.

So instead of pretending that the protocols said calibration should be done for each individual test, or that calibration data should be recorded for each individual test, or that data must be kept forever, or the Maxine needs calibrating every time lets go with the facts.

Mass spectrometer calibration lasts for weeks.

The data on calibration was not a required part of the protocol.

The contemporaneous data was not available more than 8 years after the tests.

Data was only kept for 8 years.

So, in short, the lab probably did the calibration at some point prior to the tests, as per protocols they did not include it in the submission, and it was destroyed 8 years later.

Nothing wrong there, just made up allegations that things should have been done differently. The very definition of trying to get off on a technicality, and the reason why time barring exists.

The manufacturer you quote says “for a high standard daily calibration should be sufficient”

Such would be imperative if they had been running different standards through, which they would have been doing.

Perhaps you could provide info from the manufacturer of the actual machine used.

The independent expert, Davis ,worked on such machines every day from the perspective of setting up and ensuring the correct running of such.

I can see why you may mistrust Edwards but how can you deny submissions made by experts in the field.

This would include WADA and Prof Cowen himself.

If you could read properly KCL would have indeed done some cal data work at some point but not for the tests in question .

Beloff commented that he had expected the data missing to have been in the submission by KCL, they were done so in other cases.He was then told that they had done contemporaneous cal data .Which they had not.Yoy have been told this a dozen times.

They did not destroy the data as they never had it.

Further it was asked for within months and Parliament was told it was available.

The letter of Dec 09 says that the data was not required. It was by ISO 17095 and by the 1994 IOC Medical Code( rententiontimes).Even if there was silence about the matter you just can’t invent methods that run counter to all known methods .

You then say that KCL did not do them as a reason why they did not do them.. You are thick thick thick.

The standards used for drug testing are those cited in the Davis paper and inc those by Cowen himself.

Only a gross incompetent would not have grasped that.

By the way, in an other case ,UKS said that you could only apply the IOC Med Code to the Olympics .

So the standards have to be best current practice as demonstrated by Cowens and other from such as the Koln Lab in their cited papers .

And for that matter adopted fully by the WADA

Bottom of the class again!

Let me take this slowly for you.

Calibration may have indeed been done daily, but it was not required on the file, and not needed to be done for each test separately.

As such it was not on the Case file, it didn’t need to be there.

Do you understand that yet?

Ok so now on to the Davis paper. Davis is clear that his report is based on the info from KCL. He is adamant about this, yet KCL replies in writing to a request for the 1997 protocols with a clear response that they were not on their files, and protocols were updated under the same code. Therefore Davis did not have the 1997 protocols to hand when making his report, you cannot just make up standards and say they are what applied, and I not Davis does not do that in his report. He never says they did not use the protocols that they should have used, because like you and me he does not know what they were.

On Beloff, can you please be clear. In one comment he asked whether the data had been done, he said that it was in other packs, in another comment he asked for the data. I don’t know for certain which is actually true, but given they reached a judgement without it I guess it was not that he asked for the data to be provided.

You again assert that contemporaneous calibration was not done. That is simply not shown by the evidence. That you continue to claim this as fact shows you are sinning things. Contemporaneous, in case you are struggling, does not mean calibration for Mr Edwards specific test, it means in the same time period.

So can you show me where it was a requirement for this test in 1997 to have calibration done specifically for that test, and for that data to be presented as part of the file? Of course not, yet you insist it is.

Can you show me the admission that contemporaneous calibration was not done? Of course not, but continue to pretend it was admitted.

The problem for Mr Edwards is that simply twisting the truth won’t get him reinstated. Sure some people with limited understanding will believe some of the distortions, and others will believe that he has significant new evidence when it’s nothing much that hasn’t already been seen and reviewed, but the bar is much higher than that for reinstatement, and based on what has been presented I think he will struggle to even approach it let alone get over it.

Would you be kind enough to write the above in English please.

However Kings said they had no cal data that could be applied to the samples analysis that was presented to the hearing even though Beloff was assured by that such was the case.

Ps, what about the substituted urine.Or did I miss this in your distorted scattergun response?

Dear Mr One Sided .

Davis depended on Cowen’s cited papers but checked to see if an SOP’s existed which would allow him to fairly comment on the 600 pages of hidden evidence that was released after application via DPA.

Thus the protocols used where not made up rather they are those of the good chap Professor David Cowen MBE.

So ,judged against Cowen’s own protocols/ stated methods , Davis determined material errors and breaches in the way Cowen carried out the work.

I have a feeling that it has been pointed out you on more than quite a lot of times that the work of the Lab was to comply with ISO 17025. Which means, in this context,Cowen’s own published papers.Davis demonstrated that Cowen did not do this.

I do have a feeling that you are out of your depth.

When my hearing took place I did not have all this evidence that we have today it was withheld from me .

Paul ed wrote:

When my hearing took place I did not have all this evidence that we have today it was withheld from me .

Did this missing/hidden evidence show that you did not provide enough urine to do the analysis they showed they carried out ?

No wonder they tried to keep that from you.

We knew nothing of 58 tests and not enough urine to do the analysis.

Paul ed wrote:

We knew nothing of 58 tests and not enough urine to do the analysis.

The did 58 goes at testing your urine. That is taking the piss .

Did you ever get any explanation of why they did this?

Has anyone every has heard of this or anything like more than the one analyse being done on the A sample .

It sounds like they knew it was your sample.

Could that be possible?

Paul ed wrote:

We knew nothing of 58 tests and not enough urine to do the analysis.

Quite simply this should have been enough for your case to have been thrown out and the laboratory closed down.

Kings college is supposed Have the best Labs in the world don’t think so.

Michelle,

Ok, so there are protocols written by Cowen which you say he did not follow. I don't care, as long as he followed the protocols laid down by the body giving the ban.

If I take my car for an MOT, I am aware they can check a load of other things, Ian aware they can give advice on many areas, but i want an MOT and that's what I pay for and that's what they do. Whether they want to do additional over and above that is irrelevant, even if they want to as experts, even if they recommend it'd would do it inherit own cars.

Do you understand that Cowens own preferences, his papers etc are a red herring. The protocols at the time, for the body requesting the test are all that matter, and none have you have shown how they were breached.

You are a fool!

How many times have you been told that ISO 17025 applies to the protocols specified.This means that he has to follow peer reviewed papers. This would have been his own papers and or the many other ones published at the time. Thus his papers are central and not ref herrings.If you don’t understand feel free to take your toys away and play elsewhere.

To compound matters you try and out gun Davis, an expert in this area.

You are even an idiot on MOT , are real idiot. If you ask for a MOT they only report on MOT applicable matters, these may be failures or advisories.

However to try and continue with this comparison;you fail an MOT but then find that they had not set the machines properly would you have failed?

You make ref to preferences of Cowen.

Do you understand that preferences only apply to peer reviewed papers. Many have been cited, but again as you are a fool you have ignored, again and again.

You are utterly out of your depth.

Go away and take a science night class for beginners.