And, the doping lab did nearly 60 analyses on the A sample after it was declared positive and by then they definitely knew who’s sample it was and they had to add urine from someone else to do this work.
Truly totally appalling.
And, the doping lab did nearly 60 analyses on the A sample after it was declared positive and by then they definitely knew who’s sample it was and they had to add urine from someone else to do this work.
Truly totally appalling.
I forgot to mention that there was no calibration work up done for the samples.
In a criminal case or for any research purposes the results would be binned.
Science reader wrote:
I forgot to mention that there was no calibration work up done for the samples.
In a criminal case or for any research purposes the results would be binned.
No cal data !
I agree , bin the results.
Red Butler2 wrote:
Science reader wrote:
I forgot to mention that there was no calibration work up done for the samples.
In a criminal case or for any research purposes the results would be binned.
No cal data !
I agree , bin the results.
Will those who hid the appalling evidence from Edwards end up with their jobs in the bin?
Red Butler2 wrote:
Red Butler2 wrote:
No cal data !
I agree , bin the results.
Will those who hid the appalling evidence from Edwards end up with their jobs in the bin?
Good question .
In the bin wrote:
Red Butler2 wrote:
Will those who hid the appalling evidence from Edwards end up with their jobs in the bin?
Good question .
One person who was very significant at the time lossed job , but only one !
Did the DCO, the chap who could not remember what he did with the sample,not end up running the Lawn Tennis Assoc in the UK?
Wow, that was a bit of rapid promotion.
What happened to the person who refused her staff to correspond with Dr Davis.
And let us be reminded that in the MarkHylton case it was clear that the Lab fouled up and Hylton was cleared on the evidence of Davis.
Was this why she refused to engage with Davis.
All very strange the more you look into it.
UKAD watcher wrote:
What happened to the person who refused her staff to correspond with Dr Davis.
And let us be reminded that in the MarkHylton case it was clear that the Lab fouled up and Hylton was cleared on the evidence of Davis.
Was this why she refused to engage with Davis.
All very strange the more you look into it.
Are you saying that Edwards suffered because his expert had already proved that the doping lab, Kings College,had fouled up before and that the authorities could not risk an other public failure?
Now that begins to make sense as an explanation of the evidence that was hidden.
Flipping heavy wrote:
UKAD watcher wrote:
What happened to the person who refused her staff to correspond with Dr Davis.
And let us be reminded that in the MarkHylton case it was clear that the Lab fouled up and Hylton was cleared on the evidence of Davis.
Was this why she refused to engage with Davis.
All very strange the more you look into it.
Are you saying that Edwards suffered because his expert had already proved that the doping lab, Kings College,had fouled up before and that the authorities could not risk an other public failure?
Now that begins to make sense as an explanation of the evidence that was hidden.
The head of Anti-Doping in the UK at the time forbid Edwards team to examine the chain of custody to enable them to account for the days it went missing.
If they had not been worried about loosing an other positive would they have done this.
And was UK Anti-Doping directive involved in funding discussions with the Lab at the time ?
And was the head of the Lab, the man who signed off the Edwards work ,also involved in funding negotiations at the time; this would have been in direct contravention of ISO 17025 , the quality control management protocol.
The more you look the more interesting it becomes.
UKAD watcher wrote:
Flipping heavy wrote:
Are you saying that Edwards suffered because his expert had already proved that the doping lab, Kings College,had fouled up before and that the authorities could not risk an other public failure?
Now that begins to make sense as an explanation of the evidence that was hidden.
The head of Anti-Doping in the UK at the time forbid Edwards team to examine the chain of custody to enable them to account for the days it went missing.
If they had not been worried about loosing an other positive would they have done this.
And was UK Anti-Doping directive involved in funding discussions with the Lab at the time ?
And was the head of the Lab, the man who signed off the Edwards work ,also involved in funding negotiations at the time; this would have been in direct contravention of ISO 17025 , the quality control management protocol.
The more you look the more interesting it becomes.
The person who does the analysis must not have any part or interest in the financial/ contract to provide such analyses.
Blatant breach of the testing protocol which should have brought serious consequences on the Lab and Edwards to have been subject to no charges.
An other interesting twist in the continuing saga of the appalling treatment Edwards has suffered.
Science reader wrote:
And, the doping lab did nearly 60 analyses on the A sample after it was declared positive and by then they definitely knew who’s sample it was and they had to add urine from someone else to do this work.
Truly totally appalling.
How on earth is this compatible with the quality management controls agreed by KCL?
Combine it all with what we know and it is very disturbing as we have to ask who controls the Anti-Doping police?
ISO 17025 wrote:
Science reader wrote:
And, the doping lab did nearly 60 analyses on the A sample after it was declared positive and by then they definitely knew who’s sample it was and they had to add urine from someone else to do this work.
Truly totally appalling.
How on earth is this compatible with the quality management controls agreed by KCL?
Combine it all with what we know and it is very disturbing as we have to ask who controls the Anti-Doping police?
What else can come out of the woodwork.
Edwards has been subject to more abuses of the doping controllers powers than anyone in history.
ISO 17025 wrote:
UKAD watcher wrote:
The head of Anti-Doping in the UK at the time forbid Edwards team to examine the chain of custody to enable them to account for the days it went missing.
If they had not been worried about loosing an other positive would they have done this.
And was UK Anti-Doping directive involved in funding discussions with the Lab at the time ?
And was the head of the Lab, the man who signed off the Edwards work ,also involved in funding negotiations at the time; this would have been in direct contravention of ISO 17025 , the quality control management protocol.
The more you look the more interesting it becomes.
The person who does the analysis must not have any part or interest in the financial/ contract to provide such analyses.
Blatant breach of the testing protocol which should have brought serious consequences on the Lab and Edwards to have been subject to no charges.
An other interesting twist in the continuing saga of the appalling treatment Edwards has suffered.
Conflict of interest and dishonest.
The lawyer wrote:
ISO 17025 wrote:
The person who does the analysis must not have any part or interest in the financial/ contract to provide such analyses.
Blatant breach of the testing protocol which should have brought serious consequences on the Lab and Edwards to have been subject to no charges.
An other interesting twist in the continuing saga of the appalling treatment Edwards has suffered.
Conflict of interest and dishonest.
One day the actual truth about all this will come out and the key name at the centre of it all will come out.
That name is known!
The lawyer wrote:
The lawyer wrote:
Conflict of interest and dishonest.
One day the actual truth about all this will come out and the key name at the centre of it all will come out.
That name is known!
What will happen if this name does come out on Letsrun?
Truth 77 wrote:
The lawyer wrote:
One day the actual truth about all this will come out and the key name at the centre of it all will come out.
That name is known!
What will happen if this name does come out on Letsrun?
Why so many years.
Why wrote:
Truth 77 wrote:
What will happen if this name does come out on Letsrun?
Why so many years.
I think it is because to name the name behind it all may cause libel actions and the athlete has no funds to defend this.
The evidence of a cover up is clear but the missing bit of who caused the first string to be pulled to get Edwards is still not out.
I have just read in the Davis reports that the Lab did not calibration work up and ended up measuring the wrong ion.
How could they measure his T: E ratio ?
Why did they hide this?
Learned friend wrote:
Why wrote:
Why so many years.
I think it is because to name the name behind it all may cause libel actions and the athlete has no funds to defend this.
The evidence of a cover up is clear but the missing bit of who caused the first string to be pulled to get Edwards is still not out.
This is very serious.