Just repeat after me “We have no evidence that the 94 conviction is not safe. We would still like people to support us in getting the life ban quashed by giving Paul special treatment outside of the process”.
Just repeat after me “We have no evidence that the 94 conviction is not safe. We would still like people to support us in getting the life ban quashed by giving Paul special treatment outside of the process”.
Ultraboy wrote:
Just repeat after me “We have no evidence that the 94 conviction is not safe. We would still like people to support us in getting the life ban quashed by giving Paul special treatment outside of the process”.
Just repeat after me.
“ I am of limited intelligence and refuse to read what has been presented to me on many many occasions. Further I do not believe in due process and am etirely satisfied with the persistent withholding evidence.
I don’t care if one of the counties leading academics in the field has demonstrated contamination from the standard that caused the false positive. I am limited intelligence and have no experience or knowledge of the areas under debate”
Need action
You are right about ultra’s motives.
He persistently posts on other forums in full and persistent support of UKA and like this thread does not read what is said but just repeats the same thing via trolling.
He would lead people to think that he has experience at elite modern level but that is miles away from the truth.
A small town hick floundering out of his depth .
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.
More personal attack rather than actually dealing with the point.
Again you lie about me. I don’t try to lead anybody to believe anything about my involvement. Read what I said earlier in the thread
“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.”
Yeah I’m really trying to pretend to be involved in modern elite athletics.
Just admit it, you have zero evidence against the 94 ban. You keep saying it’s been dealt with but you have shown NOTHING that would invalidate it and every time you are challenged you resort to abuse.
Ultraboy wrote:
More personal attack rather than actually dealing with the point.
Again you lie about me. I don’t try to lead anybody to believe anything about my involvement. Read what I said earlier in the thread
“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.”
Yeah I’m really trying to pretend to be involved in modern elite athletics.
Just admit it, you have zero evidence against the 94 ban. You keep saying it’s been dealt with but you have shown NOTHING that would invalidate it and every time you are challenged you resort to abuse.
Not one person has said what you deny in your quotes.You have a fertile imagination.
It is because copious Infomation has been provided on the 94 test and the limits of this site in dealing with and such has been ignored that you get it in the neck.
It is taken that there is no chance of convincing you on the 94 test. The Edwards’ side is content with such.
You say that you will not be bothered to look at the evidence on the 97 test as you need to cross the hurdle of the 94 test.
The Edwards side is content with that; your support is not wanted .
Now , stop posting and go away.
When people resort to abuse as easily as you have when challenged it’s normally an indication that they are not being honest and don’t like being challenged.
The quote I gave was what I said on this thread, I’m not pretending to be involved in elite modern athletics. Never have pretended any such thing. But you decide to make out that I do because you are more interested in personally abusing me than anything else.
You’ve not been interested in discussing anything about 94 honestly and that speaks volumes.
So no, I don’t think I should let you dictate what opinions are allowed to be expressed when you are so determined to bully anybody who expresses anything that challenges yours.
Ultraboy wrote:
When people resort to abuse as easily as you have when challenged it’s normally an indication that they are not being honest and don’t like being challenged.
The quote I gave was what I said on this thread, I’m not pretending to be involved in elite modern athletics. Never have pretended any such thing. But you decide to make out that I do because you are more interested in personally abusing me than anything else.
You’ve not been interested in discussing anything about 94 honestly and that speaks volumes.
So no, I don’t think I should let you dictate what opinions are allowed to be expressed when you are so determined to bully anybody who expresses anything that challenges yours.
Why are you still trolling ?
You have no idea what you are talking about.
You are mocked because you are out of your depth .
sense wrote:
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.
His intelligence combined and bias can’t understand the primitive justice methods in the early 90’s.
A positive was not evidence it was deemed the final judgement and the authorities saw no resason to have a fair process.
He has no knowledge of any of this nor any interest in finding out.
Absolutely out of his depth .
It’s not out of your depth to say that if somebody asserts that a medical exam was required by a code at the time then they should provide the code.
You resortedto abuse immediately and not just to me either, to almost any poster who dared challenge your assertions.
But really you need to stop posting about me, or abusing me. This thread is aboutPaul Edwards, you seem to want to make it about me. That’s a nonsense.
Ultraboy wrote:
It’s not out of your depth to say that if somebody asserts that a medical exam was required by a code at the time then they should provide the code.
You resortedto abuse immediately and not just to me either, to almost any poster who dared challenge your assertions.
But really you need to stop posting about me, or abusing me. This thread is aboutPaul Edwards, you seem to want to make it about me. That’s a nonsense.
Find the Code; do you really think this is being made up.
It has been accepted that some of the arguments for the 94 test cannot be fully documented on this site, But such is a very very small part of the whole. It is the whole that drown in.
The substance of this thread is the life ban from 97 and the boxes of files that are for that test.
You have chosen to ignore scientific reports that show
contamination of samples and substituted urine.
Your view on the contemporaneous calibration issue is to say that because such is not specified it is not needed.
Are you now going to say that there is no rule not to have contamination nor substituted urine then it is ok.
If you don’t like the intellectual heat then stop posting and start reading and take advice.
Do I really think it’s being made up?
Is that how you expect people to decide cases? How can you argue that the code is broken if none of you have a copy of the code? So much of what has been put forward about the 94 case has been misleading to say the least.
You keep saying the 94 ban is irrelevant. You would not have repeatedly argued this if you had clear evidence that it was wrong. So I am saying that you need to just admit it is a perfectly safe decision and that you are adjusted by people to get behind a campaign to unban Paul based on purely the 97 tests.
You have exhausted legal channels so you essentially want special treatment for Paul outside of the process. If you can get people’s support by being honest and admitting you don’t have a case against the 94 bsnnthen good luck to you. However, trying to pretend that you have a black and white case against when you don’t even have a copy of the code you say was broken is dishonest.
Paul doesn’t answer questions about the 94 case openly. That’s not good. I don’t really buy that he lost the information from the 1994 hearing, or doesn’t recall what defence he offered in the case or in the press. It’s simply too big an event in somebody’s life for then to treat it like this. That leaves, for me, the probability that what occured is less than helpful to Mr Edwards case.
I don’t mind any debate, but your abuse is disgusting. In particular the repeated use of the word retard by Mr Edwards supporters shows a complete lack of decency. When people behave like this is usually an indication that they are desperate to avoid having to discuss things openly.
Keeping files in some order, if at all kept,was very difficult for an uneducated man with a solicitor that stopped being in business. You have been told that.
I want to openly discuss the 97 life ban ; this you do not have the ability to do. You would rather troll over a matter that has always been accepted as, for reasons above, to substantiate.
Enter the debate as to whether contamination and urine substitution is ok.
Come on, he who professes not to be a retard, redeem yourself.
When you contaminate a thread , and know it, with trolling ,you with get mockery .
And I bet openly have said that if the 94 ban is valid I don’t want to support any campaign to get Mr Edwards special treatment outside of the regulations and UK law.
I’ve given my reasons and I have not tried to hide anything. You cannot possibly argue that somebody challenging your opinion or stating their own in the face of persistent abuse is trolling. I’m not lying about anything, I’m not doing this because anybody has asked or induced me to do it. You are merely pissed off that I point out a fact Mr Edwards himself acknowledges, people will be less likely to support him if they look at his 94 ban.
Ultraboy wrote:
And I bet openly have said that if the 94 ban is valid I don’t want to support any campaign to get Mr Edwards special treatment outside of the regulations and UK law.
I’ve given my reasons and I have not tried to hide anything. You cannot possibly argue that somebody challenging your opinion or stating their own in the face of persistent abuse is trolling. I’m not lying about anything, I’m not doing this because anybody has asked or induced me to do it. You are merely pissed off that I point out a fact Mr Edwards himself acknowledges, people will be less likely to support him if they look at his 94 ban.
If inside uk law or opened by IAAF integrity unit ?
You don’t care about the 97, even though you have entered that discussion.You stopped this discussion when your brain power was exposed.
So stop posting, unless you want to comment of contamination of samples and substited urine.We are content that you keep to your view of the 94 test, though we take a different view.
This is the basis of this thread .
The thread is for all opinions, it’s not s oaid advert. You keep repeating your opinion so I’m free to repeat mine.
Ultraboy wrote:
The thread is for all opinions, it’s not s oaid advert. You keep repeating your opinion so I’m free to repeat mine.
We await your opinion on many matters that seemingly sit outside your brainpower.
Contaminated samples
Substituted urine.
You can’t start a discussion point and then when counter evidence and scientific reports are presented suddenly withdraw only to raise the same point a month later . Trolling ?
The issue I raised with the 97 evidence was about not showing the standards. That’s still the case, I don’t have to enter into discussion on any other point. NA says ther e are no standards as such. So we now are st a point where your experts would put forward what they believe the standards should have been. Experts on the other side would then have to respond.
I’m not going to get into a science discussion. That’s for the scientists on both sides to debate. The point is that you won’t get to debate that without special treatment being given to Mr Edwards.
I have been trying to discuss the point that matters to me. That none of this invalidated the 94 test and that Mr Edwards supporters are not being up front about this.
This thread poses the question could Paul Edwards be telling the truth. Yet when a lie detector test was suggested you became insulting.
Cowen has always already said what the protocol of mass spec should be as well a decades of correct use according to the manufacturers instructions .
If he had applied such then the contamination of the samples would have been spotted prior to submitting to the hearing. All set out for you to read.
We are happy not to have your support.
I’m a D2 female runner. Our coach explicitly told us not to visit LetsRun forums.
Great interview with Steve Cram - says Jakob has no chance of WRs this year
Guys between age of 45 and 55 do you think about death or does it seem far away
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion
RENATO can you talk about the preparation of Emile Cairess 2:06
adizero Road to Records with Yomif Kejelcha, Agnes Ngetich, Hobbs Kessler & many more is Saturday