This is now mad or you are .
The chap in the lab became head of tennis .
This is now mad or you are .
The chap in the lab became head of tennis .
I reached out to Paul directly via Facebook letting him know about this discussion. Hopefully he can answer serious questions anybody here has. May as well post your questions in advance considering he has the link to this thread now. Of course I have no idea if he'd want to use this vehicle to get his message out, but we'll see.
It's the doping officer who took the disputed test not head of lab
Lean Cuisine wrote:
I reached out to Paul directly via Facebook letting him know about this discussion. Hopefully he can answer serious questions anybody here has. May as well post your questions in advance considering he has the link to this thread now. Of course I have no idea if he'd want to use this vehicle to get his message out, but we'll see.
1) What lab data is publicly available? Test method, QA/QC, and the failed test results would be a good start.
2) What are the dates of the tests and when was the lab asked to provide its calibration/QA information?
3) What lab did the testing?
Those would be a good starting point.
The sample collecting person became head of tennis !
And he is the one who lost the sample .
I have searched and it must have been Draper , a chap tennis got rid of for taking the piss .Or for loosing the plot (sample ).
What would be the motivation for them to make Paul the fall guy? Did he upset someone? Was he an outsider?
If he is vindicated who stands to look like the biggest fool? Basically, who wouldn't want it to come out he was falsely accused?
What sort of monetary reparations would be in order? 23 years is a long time to be carrying around the baggage of such an injustice if he's telling the truth.
If I were the Russians I would be very interested in urine substitution in the uk as poachers have now become their gamekeepers .
I'm no lawyer, but the legal counsel against Edwards seems to be saying "The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth are insignificant. Only the facts that deem Mr. Edwards guilty are relevant." If you have a few minutes, try reading this. It sounds like a hatchet job.
Michelle V wrote:
If I were the Russians I would be very interested in urine substitution in the uk as poachers have now become their gamekeepers .
Who was involved at the time of the ban that are now policing Russian anti doping ?
The GC Mass Spec was not new or even recently new technology in 1997and it was/is accepted that running a test without contemporaneous calibration invalidates the test. There were publications (e.g. Goldberger, FDA) at the time on this and the WADA protocol now formally requires what was always known to be scientifically essential. That is why the laboratory gave 4 different excuses over several years not to provide the data they said they had and only admitted to FOI in 2009 that they had never run calibration. They knew that this invalidated the test and that they had misled Paul, the Information Commissioner and even Parliament in 2006 on the issue. Fixing matters would involve a shameful admission of apparent scientific malparactice and misinformation with regards to data collected.
However, this critical omission and subsequent evasion was only one of a catalogue of dreadful blunders. Apart from having no secure chain of custody of the sample they, for example, contaminated the water blanks with radiolabelled hormone standards, could not rationalise the high number of results with the volume of urine available and even reported on the wrong ion. Paul's video even shows how a lab results sheet was "amended" in a totally unacceptable way that is outlawed in science labs everywhere.
Paul's expert showed that the entire testing in 1997 was a worthless shambles. It could not be defended in Court so an expensive time barring defence through a big International Company specialising in Statute of Limitations was used to avoid the issue. If Paul were guilty and the sampling or testing was any good submitting a proper study report with all the relevant data to the High Court would have been a less expensive and an honourable action. However, any report would simply only contain the laughably flawed info Paul has to hand and hoist them by their own petard.
It is truly a tragic scandal and disgraces the sport of athletics which I love.
Yes, Andrew Hunter MP asked the Sports Minister about Paul's case and was answered that the Government was assured that everything had been done correctly. The papers submitted included a letter with the title 'Paul Edwards' stating that calibration was not only done but was "used for quantification". I thought misleading Parliament was a criminal offence!
Kings college London professor Cowan 21 June 1997 14 16 Aug 1994
Joe Eastwood wrote:
Yes, Andrew Hunter MP asked the Sports Minister about Paul's case and was answered that the Government was assured that everything had been done correctly. The papers submitted included a letter with the title 'Paul Edwards' stating that calibration was not only done but was "used for quantification". I thought misleading Parliament was a criminal offence!
I assume it was Prof Cowan was the chap who mislead Parliament .
What roll to the head of The Anti Doping dept of UK sport have in all this .Did she not loose her job in the aftermath ?
If so why was Edwards not cleared then.
So putting all of this together , no cal curves done ,Parliament mislead , the FOI Court used to get a final admittance that analysis not done correctly , and substituted urine , fraud case of the chain of custody .
And yet Edwards not cleared .Key players either sacked or hugely promoted .
I am left wondering if the UK had missing negatives or missing positives beyond this case ?
Is this the reason why they dare not admit mistakes with Edwards ?
Lean Cuisine wrote:
I'm no lawyer, but the legal counsel against Edwards seems to be saying "The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth are insignificant. Only the facts that deem Mr. Edwards guilty are relevant." If you have a few minutes, try reading this. It sounds like a hatchet job.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a5/Paul_Edwards_Athlete%2C_High_Court_ruling_November_2013.pdf
Court summary kcl uk sport uk athletics was very keen to get time barring as I was on my own in high court I represented myself against top barristers and time barring experts
Paul edwards wrote:
Court summary kcl uk sport uk athletics was very keen to get time barring as I was on my own in high court I represented myself against top barristers and time barring experts
What does time barring mean .
What would happened if not time barred .
Michelle V wrote:
Paul edwards wrote:Court summary kcl uk sport uk athletics was very keen to get time barring as I was on my own in high court I represented myself against top barristers and time barring experts
What does time barring mean .
What would happened if not time barred .
You have certain amount of time to present evidence or it gets time barred very hard to do when every effort was done to with held evidence from you as well you don't have to discussed merits of case and detailed technical information even the container was damage and had to be hacksaw open
Paul edwards wrote:
Paul, just to clarify, there is no dispute over the 1994 failed tests, correct? Only the 1997 sample?
I'm not asking in order to condemn you for the '97 sample, only for clarification on exactly what is being argued.
Joe Eastwood wrote:
The GC Mass Spec was not new or even recently new technology in 1997
GC/MS isn't the test method for testosterone testing. High performance liquid chromatography, and especially protein analysis using HPLC/MS is much more recent, though I believe available in 1997.
It sounds like HPLC/MS is coupled with electrospray ionization (ESI) or matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization (MALDI), which are techniques for which I've only studied theory and don't have hands-on experience. But it's COOL technology!!!
Paul edwards wrote:
Michelle V wrote:What does time barring mean .
What would happened if not time barred .
You have certain amount of time to present evidence or it gets time barred very hard to do when every effort was done to with held evidence from you as well you don't have to discussed merits of case and detailed technical information even the container was damage and had to be hacksaw open
Hold on !!
The container had to be hacksawed open !
So the sample goes missing.
It is a lie that it went by DHL.
It did not contain enough urine to do the 60 analysts done .( who's urine was tested )
And then a hacksaw !!!!
This above leaves aside the lieing to Parliament about the analysis being done correctly .
And Edwards is still banned , and only one person sacked and the others mega promoted .