Legal representive wrote:
Casual reader wrote:
How credible is the sports anti-doping system.
What on earth happened to British fair play and justice.
Hidding evidence is a dirty trick.
How credible is the world anti-doping agency testing system.How do I get away with these serious flaws
Legal eagles wrote:
Legal representive wrote:
How credible is the world anti-doping agency testing system.How do I get away with these serious flaws
Had WADA existed at the time of this case then the case would never even have reached a hearing so great were the errors.
Errors that were hidden from the defence.
Michelle V wrote:
Legal eagles wrote:
How credible is the world anti-doping agency testing system.How do they get away with these serious flaws[.quote]
Had WADA existed at the time of this case then the case would never even have reached a hearing so great were the errors.
Errors that were hidden from the defence.
But Paul is banned for life so how can that be fair in any form of justice .
Wada have to have an integrity unit to look as musjustaces esp those cases of hidden evidence and prosecutions from the London Lab where they did not set the machines correctly .
Note the labs legal dept formally stated that they were not doing this for other cases at the time of Edwards case.
Thus many more to be overturned !!
Will they take legal action??
Michelle V wrote:
Wada have to have an integrity unit to look as musjustaces esp those cases of hidden evidence and prosecutions from the London Lab where they did not set the machines correctly .
Note the labs legal dept formally stated that they were not doing this for other cases at the time of Edwards case.
Thus many more to be overturned !!
Will they take legal action??
Does all this mean that all the positives from the London drug control lab have to be re-examined because evidence was hidden that they did not carry out the analysis in the correct way?
No wonder they dare not reinstate Edwards.
What ??? wrote:
Michelle V wrote:
Wada have to have an integrity unit to look as musjustaces esp those cases of hidden evidence and prosecutions from the London Lab where they did not set the machines correctly .
Note the labs legal dept formally stated that they were not doing this for other cases at the time of Edwards case.
Thus many more to be overturned !!
Will they take legal action??
Does all this mean that all the positives from the London drug control lab have to be re-examined because evidence was hidden that they did not carry out the analysis in the correct way?
No wonder they dare not reinstate Edwards.
I would like someone to explain why this normal element of jurisprudence would not apply.
What ??? wrote:
Michelle V wrote:
Wada have to have an integrity unit to look as musjustaces esp those cases of hidden evidence and prosecutions from the London Lab where they did not set the machines correctly .
Note the labs legal dept formally stated that they were not doing this for other cases at the time of Edwards case.
Thus many more to be overturned !!
Will they take legal action??
Does all this mean that all the positives from the London drug control lab have to be re-examined because evidence was hidden that they did not carry out the analysis in the correct way?
No wonder they dare not reinstate Edwards.
I counted atleast six rules they broke in present WADA rules .
Legal eagles wrote:
What ??? wrote:
Does all this mean that all the positives from the London drug control lab have to be re-examined because evidence was hidden that they did not carry out the analysis in the correct way?
No wonder they dare not reinstate Edwards.
I counted atleast six rules they broke in present WADA rules .
It must be noted that the WADA rules were a confirmation of the basic rules of forensic science that had been in place for decades and nothing new.
I still can’t believe that the London Anti Doping Lab tried to get away with not providing the defence with the normally given data of calibration work on the basis that to do so would be a contravention of health and safety law.
It would be a joke if it had not lead to a life ban.
Outrageous false application of the law.
I think is worth pointing out that at every opportunity the authorities fought to deny evidence.
At first there was a constant refusal by UKS , UkA and KCL to accept that any of them was the data controller. To get it accepted that KCL were the data controller took a year and the intervention of the Data Commisioner.
There was then a fight , again having to refer to the Commissioner, as to what was the possible data held.
It is sensible to pause for little to remind that all this was to get the calibration run for the tests in question and that it had been stated that such existed and even to Parliament.
We then have the H and S excuse and an other year or so.That stupidly was overcome.
Then they refused to provide as they said that they did not have a suitable photocopier . YES ! they really said this.
Eventually Edwards team arrived with there own “ normal “ photocopier . 600 pages of hidden data appeared including the extra 57 tests with not enough urine .
But still no calibration data . They said it existed but refused to provide claiming it was not personal data.
So the whole process started again via the Freedom of Infomation Act . An other few years go by and more evasion. Eventually the FOI court ordered the release of the Calibration Data .
Under this pressure KCL admitted they had never ever had the calibration curves for the analysis.
All this is commensurate with there being contamination in the water blank and the wrong molecule was being measured .
This was a key finding of the Davis report .
Michelle V wrote:
I think is worth pointing out that at every opportunity the authorities fought to deny evidence.
At first there was a constant refusal by UKS , UkA and KCL to accept that any of them was the data controller. To get it accepted that KCL were the data controller took a year and the intervention of the Data Commisioner.
There was then a fight , again having to refer to the Commissioner, as to what was the possible data held.
It is sensible to pause for little to remind that all this was to get the calibration run for the tests in question and that it had been stated that such existed and even to Parliament.
We then have the H and S excuse and an other year or so.That stupidly was overcome.
Then they refused to provide as they said that they did not have a suitable photocopier . YES ! they really said this.
Eventually Edwards team arrived with there own “ normal “ photocopier . 600 pages of hidden data appeared including the extra 57 tests with not enough urine .
But still no calibration data . They said it existed but refused to provide claiming it was not personal data.
So the whole process started again via the Freedom of Infomation Act . An other few years go by and more evasion. Eventually the FOI court ordered the release of the Calibration Data .
Under this pressure KCL admitted they had never ever had the calibration curves for the analysis.
All this is commensurate with there being contamination in the water blank and the wrong molecule was being measured .
This was a key finding of the Davis report .
I spent over 10 years trying to prove my case then when they admitted it .And still today they are still covering up.
Paul ed wrote:
Michelle V wrote:
I think is worth pointing out that at every opportunity the authorities fought to deny evidence.
At first there was a constant refusal by UKS , UkA and KCL to accept that any of them was the data controller. To get it accepted that KCL were the data controller took a year and the intervention of the Data Commisioner.
There was then a fight , again having to refer to the Commissioner, as to what was the possible data held.
It is sensible to pause for little to remind that all this was to get the calibration run for the tests in question and that it had been stated that such existed and even to Parliament.
We then have the H and S excuse and an other year or so.That stupidly was overcome.
Then they refused to provide as they said that they did not have a suitable photocopier . YES ! they really said this.
Eventually Edwards team arrived with there own “ normal “ photocopier . 600 pages of hidden data appeared including the extra 57 tests with not enough urine .
But still no calibration data . They said it existed but refused to provide claiming it was not personal data.
So the whole process started again via the Freedom of Infomation Act . An other few years go by and more evasion. Eventually the FOI court ordered the release of the Calibration Data .
Under this pressure KCL admitted they had never ever had the calibration curves for the analysis.
All this is commensurate with there being contamination in the water blank and the wrong molecule was being measured .
This was a key finding of the Davis report .
I spent over 10 years trying to prove my case then when they admitted it .And still today they are still covering up.
You don’t have to have a science background to come to the conclusion that something has to be wrong with this case .Why else would they employ persistent tactics to deny the release of evidence?
I have to repeat that stopping the release of evidence because it would be a breach of Health and Safety Law is an outrageous abuse and utterly without any foundation.
If it was not true it would have been an April Fools Joke.
Health and Safety wrote:
I have to repeat that stopping the release of evidence because it would be a breach of Health and Safety Law is an outrageous abuse and utterly without any foundation.
If it was not true it would have been an April Fools Joke.
The WADA Code ,that came into effect after this case ,would have stopped these joke tactics to deny justice.
Michelle V wrote:
Health and Safety wrote:
I have to repeat that stopping the release of evidence because it would be a breach of Health and Safety Law is an outrageous abuse and utterly without any foundation.
If it was not true it would have been an April Fools Joke.
The WADA Code ,that came into effect after this case ,would have stopped these joke tactics to deny justice.
So the doping officer Mr Roger Draper ex-head of lawn tennis Association said I didn’t take the pH and sg I can’t remember if it was sealed and I’m not sure where I took it I presume is my normal route . Totally unbelievable .
Friend of paul wrote:
Michelle V wrote:
The WADA Code ,that came into effect after this case ,would have stopped these joke tactics to deny justice.
So the doping officer Mr Roger Draper ex-head of lawn tennis Association said I didn’t take the pH and sg I can’t remember if it was sealed and I’m not sure where I took it I presume is my normal route . Totally unbelievable .
Forgot to say that he did the whole collection and process in 3 or 4 minutes.
Or those parts he chose to do!
How could this lead to a conviction?
Under Wada rules this case would never have reached a hearing let alone a conviction.
Friend of paul wrote:
Friend of paul wrote:
So the doping officer Mr Roger Draper ex-head of lawn tennis Association said I didn’t take the pH and sg I can’t remember if it was sealed and I’m not sure where I took it I presume is my normal route . Totally unbelievable .
Forgot to say that he did the whole collection and process in 3 or 4 minutes.
Or those parts he chose to do!
How could this lead to a conviction?
Under Wada rules this case would never have reached a hearing let alone a conviction.
So when Mr Edwards lawyers went to Kings College London with scientists. They were told there were six pages of evidence that they received from Nicola sapstead now Chief Executive of UK anti-doping .In fact there was 600 Pages given by ex-international 400 m hurdler Jackie Parker to Edwards team .
Friend of paul wrote:
Friend of paul wrote:
Forgot to say that he did the whole collection and process in 3 or 4 minutes.
Or those parts he chose to do!
How could this lead to a conviction?
Under Wada rules this case would never have reached a hearing let alone a conviction.
So when Mr Edwards lawyers went to Kings College London with scientists. They were told there were six pages of evidence that they received from Nicola sapstead now Chief Executive of UK anti-doping .In fact there was 600 Pages given by ex-international 400 m hurdler Jackie Parker to Edwards team .
So who was not telling the truth.?
Come what may as to what was released after Edwards team had to visit, with a photocopier ,to get the data that the Data Commissioner said had to be released ,there was still a refusal to provide the Contemporaneous Data that they said to Parliament existed .
Thus more evidence of refusal to provide key evidence to the defence.
Michelle V wrote:
Come what may as to what was released after Edwards team had to visit, with a photocopier ,to get the data that the Data Commissioner said had to be released ,there was still a refusal to provide the Contemporaneous Data that they said to Parliament existed .
Thus more evidence of refusal to provide key evidence to the defence.
Basically disclosures ignored .