Edwards is guilty and as he is guilty all the evidence that he is not must be wrong.
Any person who thinks otherwise has been contaminated with an anti truth venom.
Edwards is guilty and as he is guilty all the evidence that he is not must be wrong.
Any person who thinks otherwise has been contaminated with an anti truth venom.
Fat Gut wrote:
Edwards is guilty and as he is guilty all the evidence that he is not must be wrong.
Any person who thinks otherwise has been contaminated with an anti truth venom.
I agree fully and think that it does not matter at all what the labs did. Their job is to stop people who are guilty by any means at all.
I don’t care if they tested someone else’s substituted urine or broke every principle of using the testing instruments.
Well done to the labs!
And well done for hiding evidence from the hearing; can’t have the athlete finding out about the urine substitution can we.
And thus is the keel you return to, purile, childish behaviour rather than actually discussing the topic. And somehow you think this childish behaviour adds to Mr Edwards cause. It doesn’t it just shows that you don’t want to discuss things, instead you want to bully and demean.
First off I’ve no idea who one sided is.
Now the other point. Whether or not o quoted our discussion is irrelevant. The point I’m making is I have not challenged the expert, I’ve said nothing on that matter. To call me a retard for things I have never done shows that you are just trying to attack me personally rather than to discuss the serious issues at hand.
Yet again you post personal abuse simply because people hsvecthr temerity to think for themselves, ask questions they would like the answers to and not accept statements made without anything to back them up.
Racing driver chap from the 50’s wrote:
Fat Gut wrote:
Edwards is guilty and as he is guilty all the evidence that he is not must be wrong.
Any person who thinks otherwise has been contaminated with an anti truth venom.
I agree fully and think that it does not matter at all what the labs did. Their job is to stop people who are guilty by any means at all.
I don’t care if they tested someone else’s substituted urine or broke every principle of using the testing instruments.
Well done to the labs!
And well done for hiding evidence from the hearing; can’t have the athlete finding out about the urine substitution can we.
I fully agree with my brother in arms.
What a great idea to test someone else’s urine.
Great idea to fiddle things.The only pity is that the testers got found out.But then, I don’t care, more fiddles if we catch athletes we believe are guilty.
Fat Gut wrote:
Racing driver chap from the 50’s wrote:
I agree fully and think that it does not matter at all what the labs did. Their job is to stop people who are guilty by any means at all.
I don’t care if they tested someone else’s substituted urine or broke every principle of using the testing instruments.
Well done to the labs!
And well done for hiding evidence from the hearing; can’t have the athlete finding out about the urine substitution can we.
I fully agree with my brother in arms.
What a great idea to test someone else’s urine.
Great idea to fiddle things.The only pity is that the testers got found out.But then, I don’t care, more fiddles if we catch athletes we believe are guilty.
I agree with the last set of posts.
He is guilty so a big bonus for the person who decided to test someone else’s urine to prove what I knew.
More fiddled evidence, much cheaper than anything we did on Egnigma.
Who cares if you have to invent evidence.
Disclosures.
Can you show the 97 testing protocols that show that cal librations was needed on each individual test and that the data for that calibration needed to be kept and submitted to the hearing?
It’s been asked several times and no information from the rules has been provided.
Or are you just going to ignore reasonable requests and resort to personal abuse as per normal.
Please could people be a little bit more civil to each other. This is a serious matter that has been going on well over 20 years.
aside from one instance calling this poster a lying twat when they were lying I think I’ve been extremely restrained in the face of wholly personal attacks including the disgusting use of the term retard.
I think I have already explained to you that it does not have to be in a formal protocol that calibration is needed for each Gas Chromatography/Mass Spec test. It is a fundamental requirement for the test in order firstly to show that you are measuring the correct substances and secondly that tou are measuring them accurately. No scientist in any respected establishment including KCL, WADA, FDA, MHRA etc etc disputes this fact so you really have to drop this daft objection. Why do you think UK anti doping and KCL concealed the fact that they failed to calibrate for 12 years and only admitted it when forced to by FOI investigation? It's obvious isn't it - they dare not admit it because firstly it exposes incompetence and secondly it shows that they mislead the 2000 tribunal which confirmed Paul's ban and continued to mislead right up to 2009.
Neither Paul nor any of those posting in support have told a single lie . I agree that it is regrettable that anyone is abusive for any reason but you should try to see things from the point of view of someone publishing factual documentation in support of their case and seeing people trashing it with no basis whatsoever for doing so. I have told you before that I have seen the entire file and assure you that every one of Paul's documents is genuine and each of his statements correct. UK anti doping have no valid data showing that Paul took a banned substance whatsoever and indeed their lab data shows at best rank incompetence and at worst scientific malpractice and absence of integrity. Again I ask what is your motivation other than smoke generation. Paul has detailed documentary proof and you have just hot air. If the authorities had any genuine data they would have defended his Court action and it would have been done and dusted in half an hour. They have nothing. It is that simple.
Michelle has lied. They have lied about what I said. It’s not a lie about the case but it is a lie about me.
I have not trashed anything I have asked questions. I asked questions about the 94 failure. I was instantly attacked because I wasn’t asking the question that these people wanted.
I don’t understand this constant referral to my motivation. I am asking questions that I would like to know the answers to. Those supporting Paul are asking others to support their cause. For me to do that I wanted to know some things. So I asked. I got nothing but negativity back.
You say I have nothing but hot air. You are leaping to the incorrect assumption that I am trying to defend a case. I’m not I’m trying to find out information that I would like to know, it’s not up to me to defend anything I’m not UKAD or any other organisation involved.
And that’s the issue I have here. You are presenting one side of the case. That’s not how cases work. They get examined and questioned. So what on earth is wrong with asking questions? Surely you want people to agree with you after questioning things rather than just by blindly agreeing with you unquestioningly.
Lets take this issue of Calibration data. You say it’s required. I’m certain in a case they’d say it isn’t. In those circumstances what would be incredibly helpful is a document saying what the standards required in a 1997 doping case would be. That makes it fact not opinion. So somebody asked for it, cue more personal attacks and claims of being out of their depth.
The issue here is that you have come to a Lay forum and argued opinion as if it’s fact and then had people resort to personal abuse just because questions are asked. That’s just not right.
On the timing out I don’t get why you think they’d ever defend the case if it’s time barred. If you’ve got a simple win no lawyer is going to argue you go to defending the case, that would be thoroughly unprofessional on the lawyers part. It in no way says anything about whamether they have a defence or not. To imply otherwise is wrong.
I’m undecided whether Paul cheated. But I do know that many of those who are supporting him seem desperate to attack people who want to question what they say and that makes me uncomfortable.
Ultraboy wrote:
Can you show the 97 testing protocols that show that cal librations was needed on each individual test and that the data for that calibration needed to be kept and submitted to the hearing?
It’s been asked several times and no information from the rules has been provided.
Or are you just going to ignore reasonable requests and resort to personal abuse as per normal.
Please ref to copious previous posts
It would be helpful if you made more explicit reference to where you say there has been a lie about you.
It’s been deleted.
But this thread isn’t about me is it so I don’t get your utter obsession, other than you want to bully people into not questioning things.
Ultraboy wrote:
It’s been deleted.
But this thread isn’t about me is it so I don’t get your utter obsession, other than you want to bully people into not questioning things.
No post has been deleted!
I struggle to keep being polite !
And then you anticipate bullying by being aware that the preposterous allegation of deleted posts will bring forth ridicule.
Posts being deleted, my word!!
By the way , why do you not question where the substitute urine came from. Just being polite .
Posts being deleted , my word , my very very word!
Struggle to be polite??? You are one of the rudest most abusive nasty pieces of work I’ve ever seen on this or any other forum.
Hers a lie for you. You say:
“who have made attempts to deny the new evidence that appeared after the hearing”. No I haven’t. It’s just not true. It’s trying to portray what I have said in a completely untrue way.
All I have done is ask questions about the points that interest me and which I think could be determined by contemporaneous evidence.
I hadn't withdrawn from the fray for any reason other than none of you seem interested in reasonable discuss ion and everything was turning into you making everything about me personally rather than discussing the issue st hand.
You see this is how it works if you present something you want people to support. You put it out there. They then get to question it. You don’t get to tell them that they have to be interested in the bits you want them to be. And when people do try to twist things back to the topics they want it’s geberally a red flag that they don’t want to discuss the areas you are raising.
So although one or two decent people seem to exist in Mr Edwards support there is zero point discussing it here when his support team is dominated by an abusive gobshite who wants to dictate what topics are allowed to be discussed. That’s why it’s tuened into a handful of people who already supported Mr Edwards chatting amongst themselves and assuming other people’s identities in a childish manner to have a pop.
OK. Assuming you really want to get to the truth consider this. Why spend £150K on multiple lawyers including an international expert company specialising in time barring (Pinsent Mason) when a simple copy of a valid analytical report would suffice? That would convince me but unfortunately it does not and can not exist. When I first looked at the data generated on Paul I expected to find proof positive of his guilt. I had not previously met him and assumed he was a cheat. I abhor cheats in any field of endeavour. Imagine my dismay in finding that instead of Paul it was the people I relied on to protect athletics who were the cheats and liars. The more I read the more I realised the untenable position UKA was adopting. By then I guess they were in so far it was like in Macbeth " should I wade no more returning were as tedious as go o'er". In other words they had burned their bridges and just had to stick with the lies and brazen it out. I know Paul but I do not mix with him socially and we are very different people but I feel obliged to help him obtain justice for the sake of all athletes and all innocent people wrongly accused. I don't know how to convince you. You have seen the documents showing that there was no chain of custody I assume. You have seen the summary of the Davis report showing that the analysis was rubbish. Davis is an expert in this type of analysis and works for a top, world renowned, University in London. You must have seen the FOI documents showing that the Lab resisted admitting lack of calibration for more than a decade. Any Jury would acquit Paul. Unless you have something that I don't suggesting Paul is guilty I would respectfully ask you to stop what you are doing as it is not reasonable and lacks morality.