Ultraboy wrote:
You state the code was breached. It’s up to you to prove it not me. Until that point it’s just you asserting and unevidenced point. You are saying this is a fact without a copy of the code that you say is broken.
You search for Code
You prove exam was done .
And as you would want full contemporaneous documentation and details of confidential cases providing anything to your brain would be a waste
94 Test was unsafe .
Edwards was convicted of a doping offence in 1994. I don’t need to prove anything. You on the other hand need to prove that this is not a safe conviction. Not state it, not assert it, prove it.
No proper evidence test different between a and B test. Experts say totally in adequate evidence and contradicts itself ie no medical evidence The experts my lawyer used were well renowned experts. Are you a world renowned expert !
Point 1, where is the documentation on this?
Point 2, when was this known to you?
Point 3, why have you not challenged the 94 test in either of your court actions if you have proof it’s unsafe?
Point 4, why do you cite the non attendance of your experts on the Helsinki test, when you know that is irrelevant, as the reason you give when asked why the 94 ban is not valid?
Need Action wrote:
This is all almost amusing in its stupidity. The 1994 testing was farcical, was disputed by respected experts, one of whom I know personally and trust absolutely. The documentation made available was totally inadequate and Paul was never able to get hold of the full data set Assuming it was of the same calibre as the 1997 work we can conclude that it did not show anything to prove the experts were wrong. In science mistakes can not be glossed over and excused. Results are discounted if a test is flawed and the work has to be repeated correctly. This did not happen in 1994. You have been told what was wrong with the tests repeatedly by MV but you seem to wish to bandy words with her so you can ignore the importance of the facts.
The 1997 test data was obtained and revealed the full horror of the laboratory farce being played out at the time. So many errors and omissions. We can dismiss the 1997 test completely and no defence of it was possible for the authorities. Hence procrastination in admitting what went on and the expensive time barring defence when a valid lab report would have done the job had it existed.
So again I say stop this nonsense. You are just making a fool of yourself and wasting the time of people who have the serious intent of seeing justice done albeit very belatedly.
Need action has spent many years examining evidence on this case .
Ultraboy wrote:
Point 1, where is the documentation on this?
Point 2, when was this known to you?
Point 3, why have you not challenged the 94 test in either of your court actions if you have proof it’s unsafe?
Point 4, why do you cite the non attendance of your experts on the Helsinki test, when you know that is irrelevant, as the reason you give when asked why the 94 ban is not valid?
I can’t answer 1 and 2 because I do not have this info.
3 .which court actions ?
4.that was never said.
The IOC Medical Code was breached . The 94 test result is unsafe.
MV,
Those who questions are to Paul. If he doesn’t have the documents then nobody does. If he doesn’t know when he found out then nobody does. If he doesn’t know why it wasn’t used in 97 or 2013 nobody does.
The 4th point, we’ll that was exactly what Paul did when I asked him about the 94 tests. Not medical exam, not any facts about the sample. Straight to making out the 94 case was invalid because a test that was not used in the case against him wasn’t attended.
As for you final point. Yet again it’s just you asserting that a code you don’t have was broken. Unless you can show the code you stating it means nothing.
PailifNeddsAction has spent years on the case then perhaps they can lay out the facts, with supporting evidence, that make the 94 test invalid.
None of you have done this despite repeated requests. If the case against the 94 test is so conclusive why can’t you lay it out for everybody to see?
Ultraboy wrote:
MV,
Those who questions are to Paul. If he doesn’t have the documents then nobody does. If he doesn’t know when he found out then nobody does. If he doesn’t know why it wasn’t used in 97 or 2013 nobody does.
The 4th point, we’ll that was exactly what Paul did when I asked him about the 94 tests. Not medical exam, not any facts about the sample. Straight to making out the 94 case was invalid because a test that was not used in the case against him wasn’t attended.
As for you final point. Yet again it’s just you asserting that a code you don’t have was broken. Unless you can show the code you stating it means nothing.
The reason that nothing was done about the 94 test in the 97 2013 court cases was that such was not applicable on balance and for cost purposes .
You have chosen to ignore this dozens of times.
Further due do time baring , which in relation to 94 , would have been reasonable it was not raised. A person of intelligence would have worked that one out.
4th point ; if you asked him about the tests in 94 it may be reasonable to make comment on the Helsinki test as that was one of the tests in 94.
It could be that either the questions or answers were unclear . But clarity has now been provided.
To make a ref to a public document , IOC Medical Code, is reasonable . Do you really think that the supporters of Edwards would make such up given the evidence that has been provided already ?
You have already said that to support the Medical Code defence you would wish to see the whole of the 94 file. Files that in drug cases that reach thousands of pages.
You have no intention of any nature to entertain that the people who post for Edwards have seen and have an understanding of the case supported by experts.
Whatever gets posted you will demand to see documents that will never be able to get on Letsrun and demand more contextual info.
You are confirmed to wax eternal in a tautological trap.
Your support is not required . I am happy that you will not give it. Bye bye.
No medical examinations .
Where is the document showing that a medical examination was required.
Paul ed wrote:
No medical examinations .
Well , that was a requirement of the IOC Medical Code.
So that is a major factor in giving traction to the 94 conviction being seen as unsafe.
Simeone must have hated you.Who?
By the way, we’re you offered the opportunity to have an appeal against the outcome of the hearing.
If you were not that that adds to the unsafeness of the whole of the 94 process .
What on earth were the covering up.
Who hated you that much?
And where those person(s) still about, in control, for your 97 case?
British athletics Federation went Bank rupture in 1994 1995 . So The administrators were not happy with the case carrying on .So is very hard to get hold of any evidence etc.Professor Cowan was in charge and still is in charge. Professor Radford then David Moorcroft took over as chief executive as UK athletics in 1997 1998.
In this case of Modahl , Radford, Veroken and Cowen and others went to Lisbon to see how Modahl could be cleared. They went without any real thought as what they would find, bit of fishing trip one would say.
They found urine containers on window cils in the heat. This then led to the bacterial degradation argument and her clearance.
Why did they rush off in such haste in her case and give her an appeal whilst in the Edwards case they disregarded the Medical Code and did not offer an appeal?
More indication of a stitch up by those who did not like him.
It will have been noted that there was no protocol for clearing cases due to possible bacterial degradation yet because this was best current science, albeit at the extreme, this possibility was applied.
We have posters saying that because cal data was not an explicitly set out requirement it should be disregarded.But the need for cal data was indisputable in mass spec work.So negatives posters learn what underpins science and its application.
I can see that not every point is utterly solid but the culmination of evidence points substantially to the out come for Edwards being unsafe.
Just a couple of points. Just dealing in facts. First off there is no indication at the moment that actually did disregard the medical code. The only thing we have is an assertion that they did so. There has been no evidence put forward that the 94 positive test was unsafe. As each suggested reason has been put challenged do the argument from Mr Edwards supporters morphs into something else. It was about to get over turned...... It was invalid because the witnesses weren’t present..... There was no medical exam..... if it was indeed invalid because of no medical exam and this is conclusive then they should be able to show in the code where this was required. They haven’t.
Secondly we have the Cali data. Nobody is arguing that you don’t have to calibrate. What is being said is that they did not need to a calibration for each time they are used and as such there would not necessarily have to be calibration conducted specifically for Edwards test. Calibration could have been for days beforehand. The semantics of the complaint seems to be that they didn’t do calibration for Edwards test, not the machine was not calibrated. This is a significant difference in wording and one that is not likely to be clarified on a forum where only one party is present.
Again there is no evidence of the standards required at the time. If you are arguing something broke a standard then surely it’s up to you to show what that standard was.
Ultraboy wrote:
Just a couple of points. Just dealing in facts. First off there is no indication at the moment that actually did disregard the medical code. The only thing we have is an assertion that they did so. There has been no evidence put forward that the 94 positive test was unsafe. As each suggested reason has been put challenged do the argument from Mr Edwards supporters morphs into something else. It was about to get over turned...... It was invalid because the witnesses weren’t present..... There was no medical exam..... if it was indeed invalid because of no medical exam and this is conclusive then they should be able to show in the code where this was required. They haven’t.
Secondly we have the Cali data. Nobody is arguing that you don’t have to calibrate. What is being said is that they did not need to a calibration for each time they are used and as such there would not necessarily have to be calibration conducted specifically for Edwards test. Calibration could have been for days beforehand. The semantics of the complaint seems to be that they didn’t do calibration for Edwards test, not the machine was not calibrated. This is a significant difference in wording and one that is not likely to be clarified on a forum where only one party is present.
Again there is no evidence of the standards required at the time. If you are arguing something broke a standard then surely it’s up to you to show what that standard was.
First para. You deliberately mix up mistaken discussions with Edwards concerning the Helsinki and the London tests. You refuse to accept that should you find the Medical Code and its ref to medical examination that that would be enough to be fatal for the 94 test.
Second para .This is where you are utterly out of your depth and challenge the highest experts that work in mass spec ( as apposed to those who use the machines). I am sure you will have seen a post on Edwards’ Facebook from Dr Tyler repeating again the paramount reasons for contemporaneous calibration data runs. This view is yet another one saying this and not just one person. Indeed , you will have read the papers from Cowen that have been cited.
You said you could not be bothered to wade through the evidence, yet you continue to profess that you know more than leading academics and industrial practitioners.
You are a complete and utter fool.
Third para.Again this has been explained to you , perhaps 20 times.
I even made the point in the recent post about Modahl but you are a person with such limited ability to understand that I am not surprised you fail to grasp.
But then again, you might, a little.
Your posts are probably a mix of experienced troll and intellectual baboon. Sorry baboons !
Yet again not unnecessary abuse.
If you assert something it’s up to you to prove it not others. Referring to other cases with different circumstances does not equate to showing the code neither dies you just saying what you think it was.
Precedent does not mean that every case is the same. So for example the code may say that a medical exam is necessary in some circumstances but not all. In one case where the circumstances are met then it may be that the test was invalidated in another underdifferent circumstances it may not. Precedent does not mean that you can generalise.
You are again misrepresenting what I’ve said. I’m not trying to outthink anybody. I’m just reading what has actually been said. One sided narrative was right that the documents you have put out there do not confirm that the equipment was not calibrated, merely that it was not calibrated individually for the Edwards test. That’s not me challenging what any scientist has said about anything scientific. You’ve also not shown that this does not meet the standards required in the doping control process at the time. You’ve got somebody saying it didn’t, but there isn’t anybody showing a standard that has not been complied with.
You see this is the point. If you are going to argue that something doesn’t meet a set standard then you need to show what that standard was and then, and only then, that it didn’t meet it. Merely making up your own standards doesn’t cut it. And that is all you’ve done.
If I am going to support a convicted drug cheat in getting special treatment outside of that offered in our legal system then I want to see te facts laid out that show the standards were not met. As I have said before my personal beliefs mean I would need to see that both bans were erroneous before I would throw my support behind any such campaign.
Ultraboy gets a 10/10 for trolling you guys hardcore. Bravo!
Ultraboy's stance on the 94 test indicates he doesn't agree with the olympic anti-doping code in the first place, which may be causing some apparent bias. Specifically, he thinks that once someone has been sanctioned they don't deserve to be treated fairly when tested again in the future. The anti-doping code does not agree with Ultraboy on this one bit. Once you've served your time, whether you were actually guilty or not, you are allowed to play in the sandbox again with all the same benefits and rights as the other kids.
Having read through this thread I must say it's an interesting case.
1. The 90s were a time when anti-doping was becoming en vogue. EPO was running rampant (see the Chinese women and the Festina Affair) and the drugs of choice appeared to be evolving enough that more funding was desperately needed to try to detect them. Anti-doping was booming with $18.3 million over 2 years coming from the IOC to form WADA November 10th of 1999.
2. World class throwers are so big and strong they are practically considered guilty until proven innocent among the general public. It's hard to relate to how someone can get so big when your own family isn't also very large like Paul's.
3. Paul seems like a simple guy. Average intelligence. Average wealth. Absurd physical abilities (he's a thrower, but ran 10 miles in under 60 minutes if I'm remembering right from 100s of posts ago). He would be an easy person to steamroll for a group of people that were more intelligent, had vastly more financial resources behind them and most importantly had an agenda that was and still is seemingly more important than any one man.
Add these things up (and many others I'm not putting here) and it sounds to me like Paul was in the wrong place at the wrong time, which is why UKAD, KCL, Professor Cowan, etc. ultimately had to sacrifice Paul to save face so that they could keep their jobs and hopefully make the sport cleaner. UKAD, KCL, Cowan etc. couldn't admit to something so heinous without it throwing their life into a tailspin.