So anti doping bodies are expected to hand dopers, and therefore their suppliers every detail about tests so they can more quickly find a way around them. Don’t think so. Doping authorities are not required to give all details of tests to the accused. Why pretend they are? It’s not a court case, and even in court cases not everything is required to be handed over.
One Sided Narrative wrote:
So anti doping bodies are expected to hand dopers, and therefore their suppliers every detail about tests so they can more quickly find a way around them. Don’t think so. Doping authorities are not required to give all details of tests to the accused. Why pretend they are? It’s not a court case, and even in court cases not everything is required to be handed over.
The actual scientific detail required by suppliers is already contained in the published peer reviews journals.
The detail of the evidence is required to ensure that the test itself was conducted with the above.
The disclosure/ discovery process is indeed designed to hand the required evidence over.
The current WADA code does require the evidence required to be provided and at the time of the Edwards case such was provided freely in other cases.
In the Edwards case non of the above principles were followed.
I will think you will now agree that you are out of your depth.
But the evidence never Existed but I was told it was.So are you allowed to make up evidence.
Also the calibration data is compulsory to the tests for validation purposes.
Nope, if you can furnish everyone with a copy of the procedure at that time that shows that, great, other wise read the username.
As to previous post, calibration is required, keeping the calibration data as proof it happened was not.
One Sided Narrative wrote:
Nope, if you can furnish everyone with a copy of the procedure at that time that shows that, great, other wise read the username.
As to previous post, calibration is required, keeping the calibration data as proof it happened was not.
Still out of your depth .
The evidence has to be provided .
The principles of mass spec analyses have been established over decades and normally the doping lab supports all cases for prosecution with evidence of this. They hid it in the Edwards case,why.
The freedom of information commission report which is 130 pages states why Professor Cowan KCl would give the information in other cases but not in the Edwards case . What hidden agendas does he have .
For over 10yrs Prof Cowan said he had done the calibration data but then Refused to provide it ,also having Informed the hearings he had the information .Eventually under extreme pressure from data protection and the FOi courts and Kings College he admitted he never had them . This information is contained in the letter dated 16th December 2009 to Mr Chris Hogan freedom of information government UK From Anne Cameron legal compliance officer KCl .Thus Cowan misled the data commissioner infringed The FOi courts and misled hearings and cause Parliament to be misled .
Paul ed wrote:
For over 10yrs Prof Cowan said he had done the calibration data but then Refused to provide it ,also having Informed the hearings he had the information .Eventually under extreme pressure from data protection and the FOi courts and Kings College he admitted he never had them . This information is contained in the letter dated 16th December 2009 to Mr Chris Hogan freedom of information government UK From Anne Cameron legal compliance officer KCl .Thus Cowan misled the data commissioner infringed The FOi courts and misled hearings and cause Parliament to be misled .
Are we to understand that he never had them or that they were never run. There is a difference and as this is the significant bit of information I think you better clarify.
If they were never run the whole case is a fraud.
The bottle holding Edwards sample was not tamper proof and now almost 30 years later we see they still aren’t tamper proof.
Clown courts wrote:
The bottle holding Edwards sample was not tamper proof and now almost 30 years later we see they still aren’t tamper proof.
https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1060780/wada-launch-investigation-over-fears-sample-bottles-can-be-opened
This is even more “chilling” news .
No wonder WADA don’t want to criminalise doping cases.Decades of bottles that can be opened and labs that don’t bother to have any calibration data to valididate their results.
And no method to re open old cases and quash unsafe convictions.Easier to re open doping bottles than re open the Edwards case.
It is utterly clear that Edwards is innocent.
To be fair, I don't think any of this makes it "utterly clear that Edwards is innocent." I believe he is in fact innocent, but there is no way to prove one's innocence in a case like this, which is why following procedures from start to finish is EXTREMELY important. If you don't follow procedures (chain of custody unknown, cap removed with pliers which leads some to believe it had been unsealed and resealed in a way that made it too hard to take back off, lying about records/calibration, etc.) then even someone who cheated must be found innocent. It's unlikely we will ever know for sure if Edwards was actually innocent or guilty, but we do know FOR SURE the rules and regulations put in place for anti-doping to ensure accuracy were not followed.
Michelle V wrote:
Clown courts wrote:
The bottle holding Edwards sample was not tamper proof and now almost 30 years later we see they still aren’t tamper proof.
https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1060780/wada-launch-investigation-over-fears-sample-bottles-can-be-openedThis is even more “chilling” news .
No wonder WADA don’t want to criminalise doping cases.Decades of bottles that can be opened and labs that don’t bother to have any calibration data to valididate their results.
And no method to re open old cases and quash unsafe convictions.Easier to re open doping bottles than re open the Edwards case.
It is utterly clear that Edwards is innocent.
According to the letter never run.
Paul ed wrote:
According to the letter never run.
So a letter from a superior of Cowen(head of the doping lab in London)to the Infomation Commisioner said that they never ran and calibration data on your tests!
And yet Prof Cowen told the hearing that he had done so and ISO 17025 also required him to do so.
And yet the hid this evidence from you for over ten years and even then never volunteered it.
And yet some of those central to all this have been honoured by the Queen.
And yet others not honoured are now helping police the Russian doping cover ups.
Could not make it up.
Not only did KCL confirm that they never ran calibration in Paul's case but they stated that they had disposed of other calibration data they claimed they had for other cases and which the FOI tribunal Judge said they should show Paul in all reasonableness. As there is no credible evidence of Paul's guilt it is obvious that he must be considered innocent. This is a basic tenet of justice and the minimum requirement for a fair society. Arguing the opposite is reprehensible in the extreme.
For the casual reader there is a key lesson.
This is what it looks like ; when the doping police police the doping police.
This.Is.What.It.Looks.Like.
Reminds me of someone arrested for a crime who blames the cops for his wrongdoing....
You remind us that some unfortunates like you lack the intellect to engage in logical debate or to contribute to rational discussions. Just repeating your nonsense without anything to support it is frankly beneath contempt.
truthseakr wrote:
Reminds me of someone arrested for a crime who blames the cops for his wrongdoing....
Well how surprising that a retard should get it almost correct.
If the cops had manipulated the evidence and lied to both Crown Prosecution Service and the Courts it would be quite reasonable to blame the police.
Well well,this is exactly what happened in the Edwards case.
And whilst we are at it Mr or Mrs etc Retard how about the legal department at Kings College admitting they did not to calibration data despite telling the hearing that they were compliant with ISO 17025 and had done so.
Okay....How about a polygraph administered by an unbiased third party? (better start practising Paul)...