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

I really don't know. When I first saw Paul's files on this fiasco I entered naively trusting anti-doping procedures and those responsible. I was utterly astonished to see the documents including emails and letters from the lab showing that everything Paul has said and shared is true and can be proved with documents I have seen myself. The sampling was not taken seriously as the tribunal report I have seen proved - nothing was done properly and indeed the container was cut open with a hacksaw. However they shouldn't have bothered to open it anyway because its history as described by the sampling officer himself made it worthless.

When I got onto looking at the test data and Paul's expert's review it became clear that the test was messed up in more ways than you could imagine. It seems almost as if they didn't think it mattered because they had decided the results in advance and had no fear of challenge from a simple chap like Paul. After all became clear I guess it became impossible for them to admit what had happened or to admit that they had evaded coming clean about calibration for 12 years. You can't survive such admissions even in today's less honourable world. So taking legal advice their best course of action would be to avoid defence of their testing and subsequent actions in court by having the case thrown out as being out of time. Paul was advised to appeal as the result was inequitable and the defendants had not informed him correctly about the testing thereby rendering the time barring inappropriate.

Paul could not afford to appeal however so they got away with it. It is terribly sad and I wish someone with some clout could help Paul.

I really don't know. When I first saw Paul's files on this fiasco I entered naively trusting anti-doping procedures and those responsible. I was utterly astonished to see the documents including emails and letters from the lab showing that everything Paul has said and shared is true and can be proved with documents I have seen myself. The sampling was not taken seriously as the tribunal report I have seen proved - nothing was done properly and indeed the container was cut open with a hacksaw. However they shouldn't have bothered to open it anyway because its history as described by the sampling officer himself made it worthless.

When I got onto looking at the test data and Paul's expert's review it became clear that the test was messed up in more ways than you could imagine. It seems almost as if they didn't think it mattered because they had decided the results in advance and had no fear of challenge from a simple chap like Paul. After all became clear I guess it became impossible for them to admit what had happened or to admit that they had evaded coming clean about calibration for 12 years. You can't survive such admissions even in today's less honourable world. So taking legal advice their best course of action would be to avoid defence of their testing and subsequent actions in court by having the case thrown out as being out of time. Paul was advised to appeal as the result was inequitable and the defendants had not informed him correctly about the testing thereby rendering the time barring inappropriate.

Paul could not afford to appeal however so they got away with it. It is terribly sad and I wish someone with some clout could help Paul.

I don't have the marks .

The libel laws in the Uk , esp when cases are funded by taxpayer could be quite costly .

I think Paul's Facebook page is likely to have the name of the person at Kings that fought the disclosure of the evidence and that can be cross referenced to UKAD senior staff to see current employment .

Note UKAD is policing the return of Russia's drug testing system ; rather ironical one would argue .

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

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.

+1

It's all a big show.

Also, I am not surprised about UKAD's anti-transparency behavior. Same old, same old.

casual obsever wrote:

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

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.

+1

It's all a big show.

Also, I am not surprised about UKAD's anti-transparency behavior. Same old, same old.

It is quite likely that the error was between UKS Antidoping Directorate and Kings College.

The head of the former lost her job in unexplained circumstances just after the adjournment debate in the House of Commons .(The debate that provided the lies about the existence of the vital and fundamental calibration curves , without such It is impossible to know which ions you claim to be able to detect .)

After a short time UKAD was formed with Parkinson as head and he oversaw and rejected Edwards complaints .He is now head of UK Rowing and as such is now overseeing Russian Para Olympic reinstatement.

Sapstead is now head of UKAD and UKAD is dealing with the other arm of Russian reinstatement .

So amongst all this history it is hard to see which organisation played the most significant part .

Of course. But now UKAD is in charge, and a big part of their job is to cover up UK's dirty past, while at the same time appearing tough on dopers.

It's not just UKAD, most NADOs including USADA are like that. Part of the show ("We are clean because we are honorable - see how tough we are on Edwards/Gatlin (ignore the reduction of both his sentences). Also the IAAF and WADA are really really against doping. We just beat all the Russian and most African dopers via our superiority.").

casual obsever wrote:

Of course. But now UKAD is in charge, and a big part of their job is to cover up UK's dirty past, while at the same time appearing tough on dopers.

It's not just UKAD, most NADOs including USADA are like that. Part of the show ("We are clean because we are honorable - see how tough we are on Edwards/Gatlin (ignore the reduction of both his sentences). Also the IAAF and WADA are really really against doping. We just beat all the Russian and most African dopers via our superiority.").

This seems nothing to do with the Edwards case .

Let's all keep focus .

Michelle V wrote:

Lean Cuisine wrote:

Could you use actual names, please, rather than referring to this key player, but never stating who they are?

A flow chart would be helpful, as there are simply too many names and events to keep track of. Additionally, a timeline of Paul's top 5 marks for each season going as far back as possible would be interesting to see.

I don't have the marks .

The libel laws in the Uk , esp when cases are funded by taxpayer could be quite costly .

I think Paul's Facebook page is likely to have the name of the person at Kings that fought the disclosure of the evidence and that can be cross referenced to UKAD senior staff to see current employment .

Note UKAD is policing the return of Russia's drug testing system ; rather ironical one would argue .

We had a Nicola Sapstead that worked in drug control . Think she got a job at U.K. Sport .

Michelle V wrote:

[quote]

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 ?

Maybe they feared having to pay the money damages being sought by Paul?

Highly likely that any damages for loss of earnings as a shot putter were utterly dwarfed by the legal fees from the range of lawyers they all parties (not Edwards)had at the court . The most significant of their costs were the most expensive chambers used for "time baring".

I am still left with the conclusion that they were very very fearful of huge embarrassment at a highly significant time in our sporting and national history .

The saga of the disappearing negatives at a lab that was doing the testing at the Games etc .

Well, if you understand the history of UKS/UKAD/IAAF/IOC, you understand that Edwards has no chance whatsoever. Sorry!

Michelle V wrote:

casual obsever wrote:

Of course. But now UKAD is in charge, and a big part of their job is to cover up UK's dirty past, while at the same time appearing tough on dopers.

It's not just UKAD, most NADOs including USADA are like that. Part of the show ("We are clean because we are honorable - see how tough we are on Edwards/Gatlin (ignore the reduction of both his sentences). Also the IAAF and WADA are really really against doping. We just beat all the Russian and most African dopers via our superiority.").

This seems nothing to do with the Edwards case .

Let's all keep focus .

Never ever wrote:

Well, if you understand the history of UKS/UKAD/IAAF/IOC, you understand that Edwards has no chance whatsoever.

Sorry!

Michelle V wrote:

This seems nothing to do with the Edwards case .

Let's all keep focus .

The power of the internet is such that the truth is harder than ever to hide. Many people in society will view someone being falsely accused and convicted as a worse situation than someone doping and getting away with it. Combine those two things and suddenly one has a chance at justice where they wouldn't have in the past.

I've been reading about Paul and this case on and off since starting the thread and I'm still quite confused as to all the different players, how they tie together, what all was not done by the book, etc. Maybe it's just me, but being able to look at a single image, likely a flowchart, could help the general public understand this much better and much faster.

A flowchart can easily be posted on social media as well, whereas the amount of text written out in standard paragraph form is too voluminous to hold the attention of many of us in this information age.

Michelle V wrote:

The libel laws in the Uk , esp when cases are funded by taxpayer could be quite costly .

I think Paul's Facebook page is likely to have the name of the person at Kings that fought the disclosure of the evidence and that can be cross referenced to UKAD senior staff to see current employment .

Note UKAD is policing the return of Russia's drug testing system ; rather ironical one would argue .

I understand, thanks.

Whatonearth wrote:

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.

The liar,Edwards, has been challenged to explain the stupid hacksaw bit of opening his sample .We are being fed lie upon fantasy lie.

The attorney for UK Athletics doesn't deny it. Look at pages 5 and 6.https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a5/Paul_Edwards_Athlete%2C_High_Court_ruling_November_2013.pdf

Whatonearth wrote:

Whatonearth wrote:

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.

The liar,Edwards, has been challenged to explain the stupid hacksaw bit of opening his sample .We are being fed lie upon fantasy lie.

I've been told he wrote to kcl and presented evidence as quoted on thread and told case closed he wrote to head of uk athletics with evidence they said case closed seems no transparency fairness and try to keep out of public domain

Bronwynn wrote:

I've been told he wrote to kcl and presented evidence as quoted on thread and told case closed he wrote to head of uk athletics with evidence they said case closed seems no transparency fairness and try to keep out of public domain

Sorry, but what did you expect? Same old, same old.

If same old same old ,then what could be done ?

Clearly Parliament was lied to , or putting it in a milder form misinformed ,by the the Minister then should it be re opened in Parliament.

It is clear that it was a Government agency that mislead the Government and that such was compounded by Kings College not following agreed scientific procedures .

What would happen if this was a criminal case ?

Michelle V wrote:

If same old same old ,then what could be done ?

Clearly Parliament was lied to , or putting it in a milder form misinformed ,by the the Minister then should it be re opened in Parliament.

It is clear that it was a Government agency that mislead the Government and that such was compounded by Kings College not following agreed scientific procedures .

What would happen if this was a criminal case ?

If Parliament was lied to does that not make this a criminal case?