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

There is much in the above that points to economies to have had the drug testing done a cheaply as possible with no reference to external standards.

What pressure did UKS make on KCL to keep costs down?

Certainly WADA and the IST’s would never have allowed the Edwards case to proceed.

A dynamic of testing is that the rules and procedures can’t be challenged because it sport. The ref is always right

Edwards and conceivable many others have suffered from this. Equally many more have got away with doping because of lack of proper investment in doping control.

Collateral damage and Edwards has been said.

In the normal world injustices are overturned. In the world of sport they may have to find that this expensive universal truth overides cost.

I understand no funding was given for standards at that time . It was on the cheap at the minimum costs which is not the case nowadays .

57 separate tests!

Never ever has there been anything remotely like this.

What was the laboratory up to.

Something very very suspicious in this.

What did the hearing judges say about this.

Dallas Dan wrote:

Maybe case against kcl wrote:

57 separate tests!

Never ever has there been anything remotely like this.

What was the laboratory up to.

Something very very suspicious in this.

What did the hearing judges say about this.

57 Varieties . Clearly Heinz Pee Soup.

Dallas Dan wrote:

Maybe case against kcl wrote:

57 separate tests!

Never ever has there been anything remotely like this.

What was the laboratory up to.

Something very very suspicious in this.

What did the hearing judges say about this.

Can someone give a suggestion as to why on Earth they would do 57 analyses?

Please, someone out there, provide an answer.

I feel bit sorry for this bloke been trying for many years to get reinstated and the Establishment Block it . This is a much bigger picture than one individual what is going on Kings College London.

Michelle V wrote:

It would seem that it was not just for Edwards’ samples that had a failure to do the calibration data work at KCL.

This is clearly not the work of a competent scientist as all the published papers of the time inc those the Prof Cowen ( from KCL)demonstrated the importance and normal practice to do such calibrations.

Would they have to revisit all test positives and bans resultant from Cowen’s work and pay compensation accordingly?

Did UKS know that because of the limits of funding for the testing contract that calibration data was not been done ?

Russian Mousehole wrote:

In addition I think it is worth noting the most eminent Max Beloff QC and leading CAS member said that he noted the Calibration Data had not been provided but he was assured that it did exist and was in order .

At this point he accepted such assurances from Prof Cowen and the matter was glossed over .

Only to reappear many years latter and after thousands of pages of extra data and refusals to provide that , actually ,the data never did exist.

By then the case had been declared closed .

I heard Dr Davies tried several times to get evidence heard without success .

What is a normal amount of tests to run, closer to 1, 10 or 50?

Heinz57 wrote:

What is a normal amount of tests to run, closer to 1, 10 or 50?

It would seem to be the first scan to see what may be of interest and a then a confirmation test for each of the metabolites of interest.

In the this case they , as it is a ratio test, they would have done a test for both T and E .

Thus three would have been normal.

If they wanted to do an carbon isotope ratio test then there would be more but they did no do that.

The CIR test is now obligatory as the T: E is now deemed indicative and not definitive.

So three.

Dr Davis said 3 also lutinizing hormone that Davis wanted to see was not given.

Jamie O wrote:

Dallas Dan wrote:

57 separate tests!

Never ever has there been anything remotely like this.

What was the laboratory up to.

Something very very suspicious in this.

What did the hearing judges say about this.

At the hearing all this evidence was not known or given .5 years later by luck fellow international athlete gave edwards scientist and lawyers the above evidence for dr Davis report .

Paul ed wrote:

Jamie O wrote:

57 separate tests!

Never ever has there been anything remotely like this.

What was the laboratory up to.

Something very very suspicious in this.

What did the hearing judges say about this.

At the hearing all this evidence was not known or given .5 years later by luck fellow international athlete gave edwards scientist and lawyers the above evidence for dr Davis report .

So the Judges had no idea they had done 57 this test because the was hidden to them at well at to the athlete.

This stinks of a set up.

But why did they do it 57 times.

Scientists would normally perform duplicate tests in order to show consistency. When starting a new laboratory job I was asked to do 36 tests ( 6 duplicates at three concentrations) and my results were confirmed as consistent before I was trusted with routine analysis. After that all tests were done in duplicate.

I can't give you a scientifically sensible answer on why anyone would carry out dozens of repeat analyses for an established method or why a head of lab would permit such nonsense. The most obvious answer is that the analyst or their supervisors did not like the results obtained so kept going in order to come up with a result that suited them. This would incompatible with what I was trained to accept and the diametric opposite of the consistencey testing that I had to pass in order to be accepted as part of the analytical team. Forum readers can draw their own conclusions.

Sounds as they were desperate to find something that would have been impossible to get cleared.

It could that the first positive was a dodgy result perhaps because there was contamination and they had not done the calibration work up.

All very very suspicious .

Could they possibly have known who’s sample it was ?

They had to cover up from Helsinki blunders.easy tip kcl off .

Very suspicious wrote:

They had to cover up from Helsinki blunders.easy tip kcl off .

If there was a tip off then how would that have worked with a sample arriving at the Lab via a currier firm?

Paul....You cheated....You got caught...

Give it up.....

Just be thankful for all the years you got to compete before you finally got nailed....

truthseakr wrote:

Paul....You cheated....You got caught...

Give it up.....

Just be thankful for all the years you got to compete before you finally got nailed....

There is utterly no evidence of any nature that he cheated.