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

Did you read pop's post? He's saying there was a conspiracy, a corrupt system was (is?) in place.

no in 1994 when this first happen we were sending experts to lab to examine evidence but they said they had done b test without my permission I had terrific problems getting data

There was not enough urine to do the work that the lab did so where did the urine come from ??

Not a simple case of swoped sample but extra urine appearing after it got to the lab.

I am only going say things that are matter of fact and true

Exthrower,

I can't help you read any of the wada docuentation.

I also can't help you read Hajo Seppelt's many stories on the topic.

1/10. 1 for effort.

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

Exthrower,

I can't help you read any of the wada docuentation.

I also can't help you read Hajo Seppelt's many stories on the topic.

1/10. 1 for effort.

All this was before WADA but as it happens if the WADA

Stds had applied at the time , both for lab working and for sample collection , then the case would never ever have even reached a hearing .

Can you explain how the WADA docs allow for extra urine to appear after the sample arrived at the lab , to allow the sample to be hacksawed open , how DHL said the sample never entered their system yet the DCO said it did but could not recall what he actually did with it and when .

Please provide the refs within WADA Int stds that allow such . I am quite happy to read them ; again.

I await your help .

My last post was for ex thrower

I knew Paul back in the day. I actually introduced him to Jesse Jackson in Brussels back in 1992.

Paul was a 19m thrower, basically around 62+ feet. If Paul were juicing, either he was doing it wrong or wasting his money. I agree with exthrower that druggies are pathological liars, but I wouldn't put Paul in this group (and I am as jaded and skeptical as they come.)

This is now mad.

Am I been seriously told that a hacksaw was used to open the sample .

If you believe this you will believe anything .Edwards must be a deluded liar who deserves to be banned for life both from track and letsun.

So you don't believe that drug testing was a corrupt farce in the 90s?

There are people on this thread who know him and vouch for his character.

Is in court summary on let's run

Paul -- How much money are you seeking? Is it required to show intent to cause you harm to receive money damages?

I have been fighting for 23 years my aim is justice and clear my name

I known paul many years and he only been interested in getting justice

Joe Eastwood,

Is there reason to believe someone was setting this up so that Paul would test positive? Or was there a mistake and their pride after the fact has kept them from admitting as much?

I'm not understanding what the motivation would be for smearing the name of an innocent athlete.

Are the courts in the U.K. that much different than in the US? It's hard to imagine such sloppy work, if not outright deceptive, could hold up in a court of law.

Michelle V wrote:

Can you explain.....

Read the many Seppelt stories.

One way or another, Edwards got his ticket punched.

There is so much corruption and secrecy in anti-doping it's impossible to know which way is up or what is real.

Bronwynn wrote:

I known paul many years and he only been interested in getting justice

From the linked article:

"In November 2013 UK Athletics, UK Sport and the Doping Control Centre at King’s College, London, obtained a summary judgement in their favour from the High Court ruling that Edwards' claim for damages was 'statute barred'."

My sense is that Paul and Michelle are not the same person; that Michelle is a native French speaker. Perhaps she is someone professionally connected to a drug testing lab? My strawman, FWIW.

This could be a very interesting thread...

Rdrrdrdrrcrcr wrote:

Bronwynn wrote:

I known paul many years and he only been interested in getting justice

From the linked article:

"In November 2013 UK Athletics, UK Sport and the Doping Control Centre at King’s College, London, obtained a summary judgement in their favour from the High Court ruling that Edwards' claim for damages was 'statute barred'."

But why did UKAD , UKS and UK Athletics spend huge sums stopping (time barred )the case because it should have been brought years earlier .What did they fear ?

Remember that the evidence for the case to have been re opened only came to complete light after the FOI court's actions forced Kings College to admit they had no cal curves .Previously they had lied to Parliament .

How then was it really possible for the case to be brought earlier when the key evidence for such was hidden by a conspiracy of lies .

It is also worth noting that a key player in this hidden evidence worked for Kings College ; the drug laboratory ; but had by now moved to a very senior position in UKAD .UKAD had the reviewing work done by the same very very senior executive who had worked specifically on the lies at the earlier job at Kings .Further ; funds for the time barring defence would have had to be authorised by the very same person.

Are we now seeing the words "CONSPIRACY " write rather fulsomely !