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

Still trying to get the hang of using this forum. I believe this links directly to the study I referenced above.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6f0LPZ-uUKqN0NGaE4tT2hyU25ybXY1OTVyV1R4UmRmT053

Once again we see how the drug testers were making it up as the went on and there procedures were a long way from forensic standards.

We can also see how KCL were fully aware of the correct methods but chose not to follow them,perhaps because they were not funded for such.

When there is an assumption of guilt then the “ facts” get marshalled to this assumption.

The Edwards case sits fully in these scenarios but compounded by persistent hiding of evidence that exposes such.

CAS has given the testing Police a bloody nose in the Russian Sochi cases. Let CAS be let loose at the Edwards case .

Who in the IAAF said that under no circumstances could the Edwards case be re-opened?

And was this after the Sports Minister told Parliament that it would be?

IAAF monitor wrote:

Who in the IAAF said that under no circumstances could the Edwards case be re-opened?

And was this after the Sports Minister told Parliament that it would be?

Here Weiss Maria miller mp basingstoke wrote to IAAF on recommendation of sports minister Gerry Sutcliffe.

Independent observer wrote:

IAAF monitor wrote:

Who in the IAAF said that under no circumstances could the Edwards case be re-opened?

And was this after the Sports Minister told Parliament that it would be?

Here Weiss Maria miller mp basingstoke wrote to IAAF on recommendation of sports minister Gerry Sutcliffe.

So much time and money wasted over 24 years unbelievable.

Public money wasted wrote:

Independent observer wrote:

Here Weiss Maria miller mp basingstoke wrote to IAAF on recommendation of sports minister Gerry Sutcliffe.

So much time and money wasted over 24 years unbelievable.

No money or time is ever wasted to convict a cheat.

Justice and punishment wrote:

Public money wasted wrote:

So much time and money wasted over 24 years unbelievable.

No money or time is ever wasted to convict a cheat.

I thought the point was that all the $ was spent on hiding the evidence.

Innocent wrote:

Justice and punishment wrote:

No money or time is ever wasted to convict a cheat.

I thought the point was that all the $ was spent on hiding the evidence.

Hidden !!

It was buried under every possible method conceivable even saying Edwards could not have the evidence because it would be a Health and Safety threat to his wellbeing.

And from saying he could not have it then said actually they had never done the calibration curve work up !

Total contradiction of all known principles of justice.

Michelle V wrote:

Innocent wrote:

I thought the point was that all the $ was spent on hiding the evidence.

Hidden !!

It was buried under every possible method conceivable even saying Edwards could not have the evidence because it would be a Health and Safety threat to his wellbeing.

And from saying he could not have it then said actually they had never done the calibration curve work up !

Total contradiction of all known principles of justice.

They said it would be a health and safety issue to the public at large, actually.

Lean Cuisine wrote:

Michelle V wrote:

Hidden !!

It was buried under every possible method conceivable even saying Edwards could not have the evidence because it would be a Health and Safety threat to his wellbeing.

And from saying he could not have it then said actually they had never done the calibration curve work up !

Total contradiction of all known principles of justice.

They said it would be a health and safety issue to the public at large, actually.

What!

To the general public ?

How on earth giving the evidence of Edwards drug test results to Edwards would have endangered the general public is beyond any understanding.

What on earth was actually the real reason ?

Seems the Lab did not do things correctly and those overseeing this could not be bothered doing anything as it would upset the whole drug testing apple cart.

Thus there was a coverup but because Edwards was persistent and used Data laws they had to keep covering up and hiding evidence and giving more far fetched reasons for doing so.

Plus they knew who the sample belonged to when they where doing analyse of the A sample.

All very very wrong.

Davo4 wrote:

Seems the Lab did not do things correctly and those overseeing this could not be bothered doing anything as it would upset the whole drug testing apple cart.

Thus there was a coverup but because Edwards was persistent and used Data laws they had to keep covering up and hiding evidence and giving more far fetched reasons for doing so.

Plus they knew who the sample belonged to when they where doing analyse of the A sample.

All very very wrong.

How come UKAD ,with there new policies of transparency and integrity, are refusing to amend their actions in hiding the evidence from proper examination.

50% increase in public funding to UKAD and still no honesty yet previous leaders have all had huge promotions .

Davo4 wrote:

Seems the Lab did not do things correctly and those overseeing this could not be bothered doing anything as it would upset the whole drug testing apple cart.

Thus there was a coverup but because Edwards was persistent and used Data laws they had to keep covering up and hiding evidence and giving more far fetched reasons for doing so.

Plus they knew who the sample belonged to when they where doing analyse of the A sample.

All very very wrong.

How on earth did they know who the sample belonged to?

This can’t be a correct claim!

We are being conned with these clearly wrong claims.

Curiousness wrote:

Davo4 wrote:

Seems the Lab did not do things correctly and those overseeing this could not be bothered doing anything as it would upset the whole drug testing apple cart.

Thus there was a coverup but because Edwards was persistent and used Data laws they had to keep covering up and hiding evidence and giving more far fetched reasons for doing so.

Plus they knew who the sample belonged to when they where doing analyse of the A sample.

All very very wrong.

How on earth did they know who the sample belonged to?

This can’t be a correct claim!

We are being conned with these clearly wrong claims.

No conning, all set out in the Davis report and admission by Legal Dept at the laboratory.

They were still doing work on the A sample when they knew that Edwards and his team were coming to see the B sample .

They did over 50 analyses but who knows where the urine came from.

Also the chain of custody was fractured with the DCO saying he could not remember what he did with it.

The sample was the only one the tester did that day and the DHL wey bill was never used. It, thus, would seem likely that the DCO took it and handed it in.

UK Sport forbid giving access to the evidence of what happened to it .

The only person who has been conned is Edwards!

What on Earth where they doing over 50 separate analyses for.

Bet they knew that what they had in the first place would not stand up and so carried on fishing.

Anyone think of any other reason?

Ed Burns wrote:

What on Earth where they doing over 50 separate analyses for.

Bet they knew that what they had in the first place would not stand up and so carried on fishing.

Anyone think of any other reason?

Stinks like a fisherwomens apron they new the evidence was no good thats why the hid it all

Paul ed wrote:

Ed Burns wrote:

What on Earth where they doing over 50 separate analyses for.

Bet they knew that what they had in the first place would not stand up and so carried on fishing.

Anyone think of any other reason?

Stinks like a fisherwomens apron they new the evidence was no good thats why the hid it all

We are still left with a central question.

There was not enough urine provided at the time of voiding at sample collection.

So where did the urine come from to do the 50 plus analyses done and declared to have been done by doping lab?

We then marry this with there being no idea what the chain of custody was and formal reports that it had leaked out in transit.

All this makes the Russian Sochi business look innocent.

And remember they hid all this from the hearings!

Paul ed wrote:

Ed Burns wrote:

What on Earth where they doing over 50 separate analyses for.

Bet they knew that what they had in the first place would not stand up and so carried on fishing.

Anyone think of any other reason?

Stinks like a fisherwomens apron they new the evidence was no good thats why the hid it all

Why am

I still banned.

“Lamentable negligence “ thus is what a UK Judge says about the non disclosure of evidence in a £500.000 fraud trial as the case disintegrated.

This is headline news this weekend in the UK; yet the Edwards case was worse. It was not negligence rather consistent and persistent actions by all bodies on the prosecution side to deny evidence.

Yet Edwards is still banned and the IAAF then headed by those arrested for ill deeds said “case closed “