So was the calibration data missing from the first failed dope test, the second or both?
So was the calibration data missing from the first failed dope test, the second or both?
ukathleticscoach wrote:
So was the calibration data missing from the first failed dope test, the second or both?
The test in question was the 2nd " failed test ".
This does not mean that there were no probs with the first .
Also remember there was a catalogue of errors and mysterious actions by the lab in addition to the calibration data .
Why do 60 tests until an outlier appears with no cal data and substituted urine having to have appeared .
Contaminated Equipment! wrote:
"Le Monde has reported that there were two instances of contamination in the laboratory, which arose after a urine sample with an exceptionally high concentration of anabolic steroids had left a residue on the testing equipment that remained even after thorough washing."↩
↗This will be my excuse when I win the masters 800m in 1:43 😄
Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:
Contaminated Equipment! wrote:"Le Monde has reported that there were two instances of contamination in the laboratory, which arose after a urine sample with an exceptionally high concentration of anabolic steroids had left a residue on the testing equipment that remained even after thorough washing."↩
↗This will be my excuse when I win the masters 800m in 1:43 😄
Good quote from Le Monde , which as other posters say , shows the process with cross contamination is a real one . Though only incompetence can be to blame .
The Edwards case is different ; sixty tests , no calibration data , substuitied urine , sample containers having to be hacksawed open.
The better comparison is with the Russians as we now know how results can be manipulated to suit .
Thttps://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmhansrd/vo020509/debtext/20509-42.htm
Expert said DHL's not used as waybill was blank draper tester ex head of lawn tennis association said in statement does not remember where he took sample
Andrew hunter mp told he approached lord Coe twice to explain case he ignored him Andrew hunter told me anytime people want this verify he is willing to help even though he retired now my present mp Maria miller has helped by having 2nd debate in House of Commons
Paul edwards wrote:
Andrew hunter mp told he approached lord Coe twice to explain case he ignored him
That's why you need a paper trail, as I said. Remember Bedford, same story.
Could not get much data from ist test so unclear about that.However in2009 kcl told foi investigator they did not routinely do calabration for any athletes samples This negligence is now impossible under current wada protocol in any case so many mistakes with sampling and testing this almost seems academic point everything was invalid.
Paul edwards wrote:
Could not get much data from ist test so unclear about that.However in2009 kcl told foi investigator they did not routinely do calabration for any athletes samples This negligence is now impossible under current wada protocol in any case so many mistakes with sampling and testing this almost seems academic point everything was invalid.
Whether they do the calibration for each test or not is not quite the point .
At some point they have had to be done otherwise the results are utterly meaningless .
So where were the calibration datas that cover this test ?
They had to exist so why did they say they had them but refused to provide them and then when under intense legal pressure from the Infomation Commisioner say they never actually had any .
Draw your own conclusions and be minded that they did 60 tests until they got one that suited "them".
Some may conclude that Edwards was some sort of cheat but that is not enough to justify faulty evidence .
Michelle V wrote:
ukathleticscoach wrote:So was the calibration data missing from the first failed dope test, the second or both?
The test in question was the 2nd " failed test ".
This does not mean that there were no probs with the first .
Also remember there was a catalogue of errors and mysterious actions by the lab in addition to the calibration data .
Why do 60 tests until an outlier appears with no cal data and substituted urine having to have appeared .
A bit dismissive, list the problems for the first as they found a cocktail of drugs
Letter in goggle drive to principal of kcl evidence that has been provided on let's run and a lot more answered case closed won't look at evidence
ukathleticscoach wrote:
Michelle V wrote:The test in question was the 2nd " failed test ".
This does not mean that there were no probs with the first .
Also remember there was a catalogue of errors and mysterious actions by the lab in addition to the calibration data .
Why do 60 tests until an outlier appears with no cal data and substituted urine having to have appeared .
A bit dismissive, list the problems for the first as they found a cocktail of drugs
Michelle V wrote:
ukathleticscoach wrote:A bit dismissive, list the problems for the first as they found a cocktail of drugs
Not being dismissive of first test only that this set of posts is about the second test .
You have avoided any comment about the points raised about the second test .I assume you are as biased as those that manipulated the production of the evidence in this second case .How do you view the points raised ?
Msg to U.K. athletics coach.
Well come on old chap , a good few of us would be delighted to hear what you think of the problems reported with the " results " from the test done at Kings College .
The time barring decision by the High court was itself a poor one and I would have appealed if i'd had the money. Time barring should not be allowed if the defendent has misinformed the complainant .clearly this happened because I was told the lab calibrated when they didn't and they kept up this untruth for 12 years. The judge should have found for me because of that .secondly it should not be allowed if the outcome is "inequitable" that is unfair as I am banned because of a useless test which the lab was ashamed to admit was invalid and covered up endlessly.The judge actually said i had the evidence but was time barred so he found against me. People who can afford to appeal decisions that are unfair though late usually win for example Matthew Fisher of the rock band Procul Hartman Who won 38 years late. I just wish I had his means
Don't quite understand why he is 58 years old now he's even bothered after so many years
casual obsever wrote:
Paul edwards wrote:Andrew hunter mp told he approached lord Coe twice to explain case he ignored him
That's why you need a paper trail, as I said. Remember Bedford, same story.
Classic, David Bedford, who's he? 😂😂😂 I'll just ignored him. Never heard of him. Just like Mo's doorbell, never heard it.😄
I understand this case which has been going since 1994. At no stage has any creditable evidence existed
Cali curves were requested as soon as evidence was available. But scientific experts said they were misssing despite chairman of hearing told cal curves were done .data protection and foi requests followed . It followed that kcl said they did no Cala curves on anyone sample at that time