Davis report wrote:
It is worth the effort to read the Davis report for an insight into Wada world and how they can be desperate to get a positive against all scientific evidence
Yep, much crap work by the Lab, but someone else had to be part of the coverup
Davis report wrote:
It is worth the effort to read the Davis report for an insight into Wada world and how they can be desperate to get a positive against all scientific evidence
Still no idea how they got away with testing someone else’s urine.
They hid the evidence and then refused to engage over the released evidence saying the case was closed.
Davis report wrote:
They hid the evidence and then refused to engage over the released evidence saying the case was closed.
Who refused to discuss the Davis report?
Yudi wrote:
Davis report wrote:
They hid the evidence and then refused to engage over the released evidence saying the case was closed.
Who refused to discuss the Davis report?
Baroness CAMPBELL now head of women’s football in England she got honoured for work with uks
Paul ed wrote:
Yudi wrote:
Who refused to discuss the Davis report?
Baroness CAMPBELL now head of women’s football in England she got honoured for work with uks
Campbell was head of Uk Sport who made and paid for the contract to carry out dope tests.They had a conflict of interest in dealing with complaints about the tests.. were they ever going to admit that they fouled the contract up?
Paul ed wrote:
Paul ed wrote:
Baroness CAMPBELL now head of women’s football in England she got honoured for work with uks
Campbell was head of Uk Sport who made and paid for the contract to carry out dope tests.They had a conflict of interest in dealing with complaints about the tests.. were they ever going to admit that they fouled the contract up?
The person who was in charge of the Amtidoping Directive lost her job in unexplained circumstances in the middle of the Edwards case.
Was her going anything to do with the case; we need to be told.
To remind; that the head of the Lab was closely involved with the contract with UKS and was the same person who did the analysis.
This is expressly forbidden by the quality management system that applied.
I would assume the reason would be that the person would did the work on the sample was completely separate from the pressures of the conflict of interest.
Yet ISO 17025 breached.
How come no cal data done, wrong ion monitored and fake urine appearing?
And still Letsrun editors will not be drawn into this catalogue of injustices and raw breaches of most of the protocols that should have applied to this case.
ISO 17025 wrote:
To remind; that the head of the Lab was closely involved with the contract with UKS and was the same person who did the analysis.
This is expressly forbidden by the quality management system that applied.
I would assume the reason would be that the person would did the work on the sample was completely separate from the pressures of the conflict of interest.
Yet ISO 17025 breached.
How come no cal data done, wrong ion monitored and fake urine appearing?
Outrageous covering up .
Honest wrote:
ISO 17025 wrote:
To remind; that the head of the Lab was closely involved with the contract with UKS and was the same person who did the analysis.
This is expressly forbidden by the quality management system that applied.
I would assume the reason would be that the person would did the work on the sample was completely separate from the pressures of the conflict of interest.
Yet ISO 17025 breached.
How come no cal data done, wrong ion monitored and fake urine appearing?
Outrageous covering up .
Is sports drug testing run by kcl Professor Cowan
Honest wrote:
Honest wrote:
Outrageous covering up .
Is sports drug testing run by kcl Professor Cowan
Yes, and one of his old staff is now running UKAD.
ISO 17025 wrote:
Honest wrote:
Is sports drug testing run by kcl Professor Cowan
Yes, and one of his old staff is now running UKAD.
So KCL did not follow basic science inc finding some urine from someone not Edwards, used the health of the athlete to hide the evidence and then one of their ex employees had a significant roll in dealing with complaints regarding such.
Davis report wrote:
ISO 17025 wrote:
Yes, and one of his old staff is now running UKAD.
So KCL did not follow basic science inc finding some urine from someone not Edwards, used the health of the athlete to hide the evidence and then one of their ex employees had a significant roll in dealing with complaints regarding such.
Forgot to say that KCL monitored the wrong ion and covered this up.
Davis report wrote:
Davis report wrote:
So KCL did not follow basic science inc finding some urine from someone not Edwards, used the health of the athlete to hide the evidence and then one of their ex employees had a significant roll in dealing with complaints regarding such.
Forgot to say that KCL monitored the wrong ion and covered this up.
Monitoring the wrong ion means measuring a compound that may well not be banned but getting a reading and saying “ look, we have a measurement and that falsly ascribing that to a banned compound”.
Was such be down to incompetence or can another reason be found?
Kings College made a similar mistake in the Mark Hylton case, yet still got funding fromUKS.
Ecco xx wrote:
Davis report wrote:
Forgot to say that KCL monitored the wrong ion and covered this up.
Monitoring the wrong ion means measuring a compound that may well not be banned but getting a reading and saying “ look, we have a measurement and that falsly ascribing that to a banned compound”.
Was such be down to incompetence or can another reason be found?
Surely this is just a total miscarriage of justice.
Honest wrote:
Ecco xx wrote:
Monitoring the wrong ion means measuring a compound that may well not be banned but getting a reading and saying “ look, we have a measurement and that falsly ascribing that to a banned compound”.
Was such be down to incompetence or can another reason be found?
Surely this is just a total miscarriage of justice.
May be more than miscarriage given grouping together to hide evidence that would have cleared him.
AIU Chair Howman said that there had to be both transparency and integrity in doping cases.
When will this happen in the Edwards case?
A case built against him on hidden evidence and cover ups.
Come on , Howman, you as ex head of WADA know all about the need to do calibration data work ups and what happens if you don’t.
You can also work out why this evidence was hidden.
When will Howman act?
Davis report wrote:
AIU Chair Howman said that there had to be both transparency and integrity in doping cases.
When will this happen in the Edwards case?
A case built against him on hidden evidence and cover ups.
Come on , Howman, you as ex head of WADA know all about the need to do calibration data work ups and what happens if you don’t.
You can also work out why this evidence was hidden.
When will Howman act?
So All organisations involved in the testing procedures and integrity all covered up wonder why .What is the bigger agenda