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

Ultraboy wrote:

That is categorically not what Mr Edwards has said. He stated that the reason he told the lawyers not to proceed was simply because the IAAF rule was being changed.

Before that he was supposedly ready to take court action, which indicates that the money was there.

In addition he actually did take a case to the High Court in 97, but chose to try to lower the penalty to two years rather than arguing his innocence with a supposedly water tight case.

He won’t answer as to when his supporters came up with the case against the 94 ban but he had made it clear it was before he became aware of the likely IAAF decision. The money was there for a high court case and it was used to argue that a guilty man should only be banned for 2 years not to argue his innocence.

The reasons was money and money was spent on the high court case and the rules changed so no need to find money .

If unlimited money then could have looked at 94 , but no need and no money.

Who said and when that it was a watertight case.

You continue to be a troll.

I don’t have any money it was controled by other people I never had a say .

Paul ed wrote:

I don’t have any money it was controled by other people I never had a say .

Have you noticed that the very limited utraboy keeps dealing with supposinglys when he knows so little about the general circumstance of 94 and your particular ones.

Typical of one not too bright as to keep mind open.

But then is a troll.

Ultraboy wrote:

That is categorically not what Mr Edwards has said. He stated that the reason he told the lawyers not to proceed was simply because the IAAF rule was being changed.

Before that he was supposedly ready to take court action, which indicates that the money was there.

In addition he actually did take a case to the High Court in 97, but chose to try to lower the penalty to two years rather than arguing his innocence with a supposedly water tight case.

He won’t answer as to when his supporters came up with the case against the 94 ban but he had made it clear it was before he became aware of the likely IAAF decision. The money was there for a high court case and it was used to argue that a guilty man should only be banned for 2 years not to argue his innocence.

This case cost several hundred pounds over 20 years I had no say over this .benefactor paid .i only earn minimum wages .

I think you mean “thousands”!

And where on earth does troll ultraboy get all this supposably from.

He has no enough brain power to work out a previous post that the Lab cannot be challenged and such resultant implications for fighting a ban.

Thus a defence appears but can’t be used because of the “ infallibility “ of the lab.

Thus the inevitable embrace of the IAAF reduction.

The money was only there on the basis of a likely success and not to fight a case where it was deemed impossible to contest.

Only a biased man of limited perception and understanding could keep on trolling.

Ultraboy wrote:

That is categorically not what Mr Edwards has said. He stated that the reason he told the lawyers not to proceed was simply because the IAAF rule was being changed.

Before that he was supposedly ready to take court action, which indicates that the money was there.

In addition he actually did take a case to the High Court in 97, but chose to try to lower the penalty to two years rather than arguing his innocence with a supposedly water tight case.

He won’t answer as to when his supporters came up with the case against the 94 ban but he had made it clear it was before he became aware of the likely IAAF decision. The money was there for a high court case and it was used to argue that a guilty man should only be banned for 2 years not to argue his innocence.

You are a fool!

You try and change the meaning of the word “simply “ to mean singularily .

You distort and invent to suit your trolling!

You see I get this from what Paul tells me. When he says that because of the IAAF rule change being likely he told the lawyers not to bother that isn’t saying that he didn’t have the money or access to the money. If he can’t keep his story straight that’s not my fault.

You guys have said that a testosterone ban required a medical and there wasn’t one. You said this invalidated the ban categorically. Now you say that the money was only there based on success..... you were telling everybody that this was a definite win.

Also the case that was taken to the High Court in 97 was lost. It wasn’t a good case. But somehow there was money for that case, a case which sought to lessen the ban for a guilty person not to disprove Paul’s guilt.

You can keep attacks by me but it doesn’t change the fact I’m right.

I have read the stuff and conclude that you have no brain capacity to understand what went on.

For instance when he told his lawyers not to bother he was passing on the the instructions from his backers .

You are a person who is deliberately contaminating this thread with trolling.

You know so little of the many thousands of pages of file notes to make you an embarrassment.

Dear ultraboy.

1.How do you fight a case when it is deemed that the evidence against you cannot be challenged ?

2.How do you fight a case against when they hide evidence and only produce evidence that suits them.

3. How do you get evidence to challenge when the response is that as the Lab is correct it is meaningless to provide hidden evidence so it won’t be provided.

Xx cc wrote:

Dear ultraboy.

1.How do you fight a case when it is deemed that the evidence against you cannot be challenged ?

2.How do you fight a case against when they hide evidence and only produce evidence that suits them.

3. How do you get evidence to challenge when the response is that as the Lab is correct it is meaningless to provide hidden evidence so it won’t be provided.

Come on ultra boy!

Has this reality check been too much for you.

It is not possible to apply the newer WADA principles to the period of Edwards tests.

Bit more lateral thinking old chap.

In which case why does anyone draw a conclusion he is innocent, as opposed to the panel being correct? Seems that relies on assumptions of wrong doing based on what they they think should have happened.

Lateral Thinking wrote:

In which case why does anyone draw a conclusion he is innocent, as opposed to the panel being correct? Seems that relies on assumptions of wrong doing based on what they they think should have happened.

You man of limited thinking.

Cos the evidence was hidden.

And because the hidden evidence has been seen by experts in Mass Spec and found such as urine substitution.

Xx cc wrote:

Dear ultraboy.

1.How do you fight a case when it is deemed that the evidence against you cannot be challenged ?

2.How do you fight a case against when they hide evidence and only produce evidence that suits them.

3. How do you get evidence to challenge when the response is that as the Lab is correct it is meaningless to provide hidden evidence so it won’t be provided.

Diane Modahl successfully challenged her test result. Paul himself took a case to high court that was not kicked out on the basis of the resiltveing unchallengeable but on time barring.

In addition thr argument put forward by Michelle and co about the need for a medical exam in a testosterone case is not about the jab result or their testing process. They claim the information was in a publicly available code document, so it was not hidden.

So frankly for the 94 case none of what you have said is relevant to the case being proferred by Mr Edwards and his supporters.

I aaait further personal attacks fit daring to state these truths.

You are a very mistaken chap. I do suggest you read around the subject.

Modahl did not appeal against the Lab finding.

The reason lab results where not challenged was because you were not allowed to do so.

You are a person who trolls on your the basis of limited education.

XX cc wrote:

Xx cc wrote:

Dear ultraboy.

1.How do you fight a case when it is deemed that the evidence against you cannot be challenged ?

2.How do you fight a case against when they hide evidence and only produce evidence that suits them.

3. How do you get evidence to challenge when the response is that as the Lab is correct it is meaningless to provide hidden evidence so it won’t be provided.

Come on ultra boy!

Has this reality check been too much for you.

It is not possible to apply the newer WADA principles to the period of Edwards tests.

Bit more lateral thinking old chap.

Come on ultra boy deal with this .

Or can’t you troll a reply ?

This is all so tiring because it is unnecessary. All that is needed is the simple understanding that convictions based solely on forensic tests stand or fall on the quality of the scientific work. Antidoping tests are purely forensic tests. In both 1994 and 1997 the tests were flawed and scientifically invalid. There is no disputing this. It is a matter of documented fact. UKAD did not attempt to defend the scientific tests in court. They couldn't as it is impossible. The simple conclusion is that Paul must be cleared of all charges. Simple justice demands it. We should all get together as athletes and human beings and demand it.

We can ignore the Goebells-like trolls who think repetition of a dirty lie enough times makes it believable. Let's try to get some action via a petition or similar. Any ideas,?

Time-barring is a real B. Now this guy is legally dead.

https://www.apnews.com/ee4d620dae76406a93e02b434c970740

Romano’s Turkey Grill wrote:

Time-barring is a real B. Now this guy is legally dead.

https://www.apnews.com/ee4d620dae76406a93e02b434c970740

Not if the course of justice has been deliberately diverted.

XX cc wrote:

XX cc wrote:

Come on ultra boy!

Has this reality check been too much for you.

It is not possible to apply the newer WADA principles to the period of Edwards tests.

Bit more lateral thinking old chap.

Come on ultra boy deal with this .

Or can’t you troll a reply ?

Well well, no response .

An explanation was provided as to why a defence to finding was nearly impossible and thus account for why the high street lawyer got stuck.

This then leads directly to going for the 4 year IAAF ban in the Courts as being cost effective.

But I don’t think many people have a clue when the rules said that “the Lab is right and no challenge can be made” and thus how difficult a response to a charge is.

It also accounts for why they hid evidence and why Edwards had to take years to get the hidden evidence via Data Protection law and Freedom of Info Act .