Neutrality. wrote:
Yet yet wrote:
The Met police have appointed an investigation into their forensic service.
Why is there not one into Kings College Doping Lab?
What sort of investigation do you propose? More specifically, given the amount of evidence already in your favor that is being ignored, what more is there to look into that would make a difference? I assume they would need to find evidence of a conspiracy or some sort of collusion among multiple parties trying to keep themselves out of trouble.
There is a need to go back to the very start.
Was the contract between UKS and KCL such to be compliant with ISO 17025?
Where there any warning or comments that it was not so and cost constraints could jeopardise the quality of analyses?
Did UKS employ anybody with any competence to check compliance with ISO 17025 ?
If they did was that person seperate from the contracts financial controls?
How many other cases of positive findings where based upon not have contemporaneous calibration data?
Was there a potential conflict of interests of having DCO’s being close family members of the Anti-Doping office?
What procedures where in place to ensure that the name of a target test subject was kept secret from the laboratory throughout the analyse of the A sample?
Like many problems it is necessary to see the cultural assumptions and drivers in order to explain the outcome as the outcome does not sit in isolation.