How can the tests be credible if the evidence is fiddle and kept from defence it means nothing .
How can the tests be credible if the evidence is fiddle and kept from defence it means nothing .
Is Paul your brother?
No never met him in my life .
I have been reading the great original posts on this thread and am facinated by what a murky business it all is.
One point I read: bottles with special seals can be opened, in cold water or hot water or special Russian tools.
What does this mean for so call “sealed food and esp drink containers” for the ease of sabotage if any athlete or in terms of revenge for Sochi affected nation?
Revenge for the extensive Russian ban seems so simple.
Read through all threads .all seems so dishonest . Same people no independence unbelieveble .
Seems this guy should be given a break.
I contacted Paul through a friend and he told me an interesting statement . In the High Court the other side wanted over hundred and £50,000 damages against him but the judge told them to take it to the European Court.
They spent huge sums on avoiding answering for their actions via the Statute of Limitations (time barring). They had a dozen people at the closed session ( in camera) Court against Paul on his own. They immediately gave up trying to get their costs because it would have meant another trip to Court which is their worst nightmare as wide exposure is what they fear the most. High Court judge said Paul's case was sound but out of time. Paul would have won on appeal but could not afford it.
Honest wrote:
Seems this guy should be given a break.
He has had load of breaks.
Nearly all the basic principles of forensic evidence were broken.
Need Action wrote:
They spent huge sums on avoiding answering for their actions via the Statute of Limitations (time barring). They had a dozen people at the closed session ( in camera) Court against Paul on his own. They immediately gave up trying to get their costs because it would have meant another trip to Court which is their worst nightmare as wide exposure is what they fear the most. High Court judge said Paul's case was sound but out of time. Paul would have won on appeal but could not afford it.
Why did the public bodies spend £150,000 on a risky defence; albeit one that succeeded, knowing that if they won they had no chance of getting their money back?
Remember the case was only one of “could the case be heard” and not the actual case itself.
Why was the public money spent on this case £150,000 disgusting. Knowing they never get it back .
I would assume that the laboratory ensured that the same scientist did not do both the A and the B sample analysis.
Mr c Walker did a and b sample. As paper work says .
Is that not in direct breach of the regulations?
Instead of making up regulations why not find them out before criticising.
Oh, and the defence that it was beyond the statute of limitations is not dodgy, it is there precisely because the evidence only had to be kept for 8 years.
As for why did they spend money defending the conviction, because they had a lifetime ban in place and no good reason to over turn it. What's the other option, over turn any ban people take to court?
One Sided Narrative wrote:
Instead of making up regulations why not find them out before criticising.
Oh, and the defence that it was beyond the statute of limitations is not dodgy, it is there precisely because the evidence only had to be kept for 8 years.
As for why did they spend money defending the conviction, because they had a lifetime ban in place and no good reason to over turn it. What's the other option, over turn any ban people take to court?
This time you have excelled yourself in lack of understanding, lack of reading, jumbled up thinking,and mixing up the courts involved.Or are you just trolling;yet again.
What regulations are you suggesting have been made up?
As for reasons to overturn? Have you not been paying attention to the posts that have been direct response to your comments.
No calibrations data, in breach of all known protocols for the use of the instruments used.This would inc breach of ISO 17025, the basis of the contract to test .
Urine substitution.
Hacksawing sample.
A chain of custody in tatters inc independent evidence that it had leaked prior to getting to the lab
Persistent refusal to provide evidence prior to the hearings.
So, young retard, you have failed to understand that
1. The case was declared closed before the hidden evidence appeared and not after 8 years.
2. A basic principle of justice is that there is the chance for bad decisions to be overturned esp when new evidence appears.
3. Statute of limitations applies to actions by the prosecution after a certain time.
Now can I suggest you ,read the responses to your earlier posts, do some homework before you further embarrass yourself.
Go away Paul...You cheated and got caught.
truthseakr wrote:
Go away Paul...You cheated and got caught.
The evidence for his life ban is fatally shattered by every further revelation.
Can you find one expert in mass spectrometry who who say the methods used demonstrated competent science.And, furthermore the methods used contradicts the laboratories own peer reviewed papers.
Deal with this or you go away.
And do you know if the same person can do both the A and B test?
teacher
Look the vast majority of the things listed have already been considered at the original meeting and subsequent meetings, chain of custody, lack of calibration data (note not lack of calibration no evidence has been presented for that claim) etc. It’s already been looked at.
As to the protocols, I was referring to the poster saying something was wrong before then asking what the protocols were.
Nothing wrong with my reading comprehension but way to go thinking I could not give a flying f@ck if Paul rots given the continued dishonesty and insults from those illogically insisting that claims already dismissed are valid, and not understanding why statute of limitations are essential. As far as I can tell he is a drugs cheat arguing technicalities years after he knows the evidence is not required to be held for.
Calling people retards for having an opposing evidence based view is definitely trolling.
Oh, and why the hellshould anyone believe Edwards, who chose to make unfounded allegations against Michelle Veroken that she fabricated the chain of custody. It was investigated by the Met and she was completely exonerated. So is his one sided presentation replete with personal allegations against individuals to be believed? No chance.
He got banned, he got caught a second time, he got banned for life.