It would have been better to have put each of these questions in numerical form as a response can then have been made against each.
I will try in relation to your first para
1.My best understanding is that no defence was offered in the first hearing .Resons already provided.
2. No appeal was offered, as previously stated.
3.No evidence was provided in relation to the Helsinki test. This has previously been stated.
4.Please be more specific when you say you would like all case details .This thread has already been told that the solicitor stopped “trading “.
As a wider note to the 94 London test.
1. Dr Brown recalls from that test that the ph and sg levels which were at a level that Cowen would , in the Modahl case ,say were outside the level he would continue to analyse.This view only game to light after the 97 Modahl case.
2. The IOC medical code said for T positives there had to be a medical investigation prior to any hearings. This never took place !!
Your para two.
1.No medical investigation.
2. Hearing for 97, would not allow any submissions ref
94.
Your para three.
1. They said 94 case closed.
2. Likelihood of rule change and thus cost effective.
Your para four.
Comment.A life ban is for two convictions.
The case for the second conviction being safe is thus paramount. You state that you will not think of the details of the second conviction until you are satisfied about the first one being wrong.
As this post is about the life ban and you want to have your own rules about life bans I am sure the supporters of Edwards would be very content if you stopped posting .
However I must repeat the most devastating flaw in the 94 test was the failure to carry out a medical investigation.This failure was the cause of other cases to be thrown out.
I also note that unlike now, there is not evaluation in 94 to see if there was fault or negligence. So it is not possible to say whether a test failure , in 94 was cheating,was cheating.
Bye bye xxx