Could Paul Edwards, thrower banned for life, be telling the truth?

It's quite simple, if it was calibrated, but the calibration not recorded properly it would be a technicality.

I don't know what the rules were back then re recording, but it seems that the case is closed and asking for govt to interfere would be wrong, as is some sort of popularity contest. Time barring exists for a very good reason, you had your chance to put things forward previously, it's over.

If you didn't take drugs it's a shame it happened.

The other ultraboy wrote:

It's quite simple, if it was calibrated, but the calibration not recorded properly it would be a technicality.

I don't know what the rules were back then re recording, but it seems that the case is closed and asking for govt to interfere would be wrong, as is some sort of popularity contest. Time barring exists for a very good reason, you had your chance to put things forward previously, it's over.

If you didn't take drugs it's a shame it happened.

There was no calibration and the data released years later showed contamination in the water blank and monitoring the wrong ion.

This together with substituted urine and hacked sawed sample bottles that had previously have gone missing are not mere technicalities , they are fatal problems for the prosecution.

As for time barring , as soon as the hidden evidence was produced and acted upon the case was presented .It was not Edwards fault that there was a delay .

We have seen in the cases of historical sex abuse esp of very recent Hollywood cases that time is not a reason for the authorities to act .-Let them act now to preserve our belief in a fair drug testing system .

Need Action wrote:

What you say is true. In fact everything that Paul has stated is true and everyone who is not trying to muddy the water can see there has been an atrocious injustice that still continues.

First, sports arbitration is not a judicial process. There is no "justice." At all.

Second, you keep droning on about WADA-this, WADA-that. WADA has no sanctioning authority. It should be obvious to every reader your goal is to discredit WADA. Why? I have no idea.

Third, there's so much corruption intentionally built into in a system that was set up intentionly pretending there is an actual, legitimate, anti-doping system designed to constrain doping that it's impossible to know what is fact and what is fiction.

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

Need Action wrote:

What you say is true. In fact everything that Paul has stated is true and everyone who is not trying to muddy the water can see there has been an atrocious injustice that still continues.

First, sports arbitration is not a judicial process. There is no "justice." At all.

Second, you keep droning on about WADA-this, WADA-that. WADA has no sanctioning authority. It should be obvious to every reader your goal is to discredit WADA. Why? I have no idea.

Third, there's so much corruption intentionally built into in a system that was set up intentionly pretending there is an actual, legitimate, anti-doping system designed to constrain doping that it's impossible to know what is fact and what is fiction.

It was not WADA that hacksawed the sample open , substitute urine ,monitor the wrong ion,had no calibration data and hid the evidence of such .

So no moaning about them by me .

Had enough of this case , who cares .

At a minimum he is guilty of eating all the pies .

Surprised he has not claimed the pies had not been calibrated .

Presumably you are associated with UK Athletics. If you had been convicted on false forensic tests you would seek justice to the very end.

That is not correct. People convicted by wrong Forensic Tests.are being cleared All the Time. The Randox lab Scandal has reopened Thounsand of cases.

Paul edwards wrote:

I have been fighting this 23 years I have not taken drugs why would I bother

Could you take it to European court?

Athletics authorities maybe just want to wait for Paul to give up rather than fix things. The proven and undeniable facts are as follows and were not even in dispute at the 2013 Court Case.

1. Without the totally invalid 1997 test Paul would have recommenced his competitive Athletics career that year and would not have been handed a life ban.

2. In June 1997 the sampling and chain of custody of the sample were invalid so the sample received at the Lab was not eligible for testing and should have been discarded.

3. The testing of the 1997 sample was so wrong as to be unworthy of submission as a Scientific report.

4. The essential calibration of the GC- Mass Spec analysis was omitted making testing of the sample invalid and pointless.

5. The Lab realising that failing to calibrate was a glaring error which invalidated their so-called evidence misled the Disciplinary Tribunal in 2000 by stating that they had calibrated the assay.

6. When repeatedly challenged to produce the claimed calibration data the Lab made a series of 4 different excuses between 2003 and 2009 to the Freedom of Information Commissioner that culminated in the final admission in May 2009 that they had not in fact run any calibration for Paul's test. This contradicted everything they had been claiming for 12 years.

7. Rather than try to defend their case against Paul in Court the defendants responsible for Paul's ban hid behind the Statute of Limitations which amounted to the equivalent of the USA's fifth amendment defence.

8. In reality they had little choice but to spend their money on that means of escape because none of the scientific work they relied on was of value. Exposure in open Court of what they had done to Paul, based on nothing at all, would have destroyed their credibility as a science based anti-doping organisation and exposed them as being prepared to throw an innocent athlete to the wolves rather than admit their own failures to test properly or to deal properly with their victim.

So you have a David v. Goliath problem here, where ironically the guy who looks like Goliath plays the role of David and the one who looks like David, Professor Cowan, seems to be the actual Goliath.

This looks as if it it David Cowen that should be the one banned .

What on earth do his bosses Kings College think of it all.

One would assume they have had to hold disaplinary action .

After all historical failure and their prosecution is all the vogue .

At least in Hollywood it is .

Professor Cowan is in an unenviable position it seems. Even if privately he would admit he messed this one up, he likely had to dig his heels deep into the ground to ensure they kept getting funding and he kept his job. I wouldn’t be surprised if privately he feels horrible about this situation, but also feels like Paul Edwards is basically a casualty of war and the ends justify the means.

Cowan has too much to lose here, as do many others who got roped into this. It’s bad for everyone involved.

Is it clear that there was a mistake ?

Could such a significant lab have made these errors by accident ?

What other forces were at work ?

Could these forces have created the cover ups and hiding of evidence ?

I'm late to this thread. I was competing at a lower level in a rival club, live locally, and met Paul a few times in the 1990s. When his high jump PB was mentioned, we used to say "Pigs CAN fly". It's a sad day when someone is banned (even if they were Belgrave and you run for Haringey), but I just assumed "thrower...might be true".

This evidence is absolutely shocking and needs to be aired as widely as possible.

Michelle V, are you really Michelle Verroken? If so, Letsrunners, know that we have someone who was at the forefront of anti-doping in the UK over three decades.

Paul, the Data Protection Act has teeth, but the new pan-european General Data Protection Act coming into force across Europe in May 2018 has even more teeth - large fines for organisations violating it.

I haven't seen a clear link to the Google Drive. It would be worth posting one here or on the Facebook page....

The evidence says (i.e the original paperwork) there are no calibration and no external standards.

Does this link work for you? It seems possible there are people in the UK who can't access it because my google drive is registered in the US. Would that make sense?

How does the General Data Protection Act effect this case potentially?

I can’t see how the new Data laws will be if any benefit to Edwards now .

But they would have been at the time of the hiding of evidence .The new fines would have collected the thoughts of those working together to hide the evidence that would have cleared Edwards .

Professor Cowan received an MBE in the 2016 New Year Honours list for outstanding services to doping.