Times reeder wrote:
Another story today of a conviction been overthrown because of the evidence hidden from the defence.
But nothing happens in the Edwards case.
How can it be that the normal rules of justice don’t apply to the Edwards case?
And how come Letsrun don’t add this thread to those high moral issues they they now have as features within this board?
Times reeder wrote:
Times reeder wrote:
Another story today of a conviction been overthrown because of the evidence hidden from the defence.
But nothing happens in the Edwards case.
How can it be that the normal rules of justice don’t apply to the Edwards case?
And how come Letsrun don’t add this thread to those high moral issues they they now have as features within this board?
About time this case was concluded.
Judge wrote:
Times reeder wrote:
How can it be that the normal rules of justice don’t apply to the Edwards case?
And how come Letsrun don’t add this thread to those high moral issues they they now have as features within this board?
About time this case was concluded.
And those who worked together to deny justice via such as hiding evidence to have some justice imposed on them.
Judge wrote:
Judge wrote:
About time this case was concluded.
And those who worked together to deny justice via such as hiding evidence to have some justice imposed on them.
Those hiding the evidence refused to provide it claiming that giving it would have been a health and safety breach.
Have you ever heard anything as rediculous or even malicious?
It has to be worth repeating that they used health and safety to deny the release of evidence.
Even the Russians have not had the nerve to come up with that one.
Judge wrote:
It has to be worth repeating that they used health and safety to deny the release of evidence.
Even the Russians have not had the nerve to come up with that one.
How many Tours de France have the Russians won? What about the Brits? Both national governing bodies do whatever they want, it's just that the Russians don't care if they look good to the public or not.
The truth will come out eventually, Paul.
Clint Joewood wrote:
Judge wrote:
It has to be worth repeating that they used health and safety to deny the release of evidence.
Even the Russians have not had the nerve to come up with that one.
How many Tours de France have the Russians won? What about the Brits? Both national governing bodies do whatever they want, it's just that the Russians don't care if they look good to the public or not.
The truth will come out eventually, Paul.
One of the truths that came out was that the drug tester could not remember what he did with the sample!
And then UKS denied access to evidence that would have shed light on what happened to the sample.
Judge wrote:
Clint Joewood wrote:
How many Tours de France have the Russians won? What about the Brits? Both national governing bodies do whatever they want, it's just that the Russians don't care if they look good to the public or not.
The truth will come out eventually, Paul.
One of the truths that came out was that the drug tester could not remember what he did with the sample!
And then UKS denied access to evidence that would have shed light on what happened to the sample.
Why did uk sport refuse to provide the drug testers expense sheet that would have gone a long way to explaining what happened to the urine sample?
They were asked but refused.
What were they hiding?
We need to ge told.
Judge wrote:
Judge wrote:
One of the truths that came out was that the drug tester could not remember what he did with the sample!
And then UKS denied access to evidence that would have shed light on what happened to the sample.
Why did uk sport refuse to provide the drug testers expense sheet that would have gone a long way to explaining what happened to the urine sample?
They were asked but refused.
What were they hiding?
We need to ge told.
The person who refused to provide the evidence was in the House of Commons in Parliament when the Edwards case was debated.
More interesting stuff ,one may argue.
Judge wrote:
Judge wrote:
Why did uk sport refuse to provide the drug testers expense sheet that would have gone a long way to explaining what happened to the urine sample?
They were asked but refused.
What were they hiding?
We need to ge told.
The person who refused to provide the evidence was in the House of Commons in Parliament when the Edwards case was debated.
More interesting stuff ,one may argue.
Friends have contacted to express their disbelief that all this has been debated in Parliament.
Yes it has.
But as the Minister misinformed Parliament due to being wrongly briefed then the matter is not dead.
Honest wrote:
What do the experts think of this wrote:
This report speaks volumes for the integrity and credibility testing should not be done .I note this would’ve been thrown out at the very first day of test
Honest wrote:
Honest wrote:
This report speaks volumes for the integrity and credibility testing should not be done .I note this would’ve been thrown out at the very first day of test
How many people involved many?
Judge wrote:
Honest wrote:
How many people involved many?
4
7.3 of the report says that because of the date stamps on the B sample it is impossible that any calibration runs where done on the two times they ran the analysis.
How could they be so daft to think that eventually an expert in the mass spec machines would find this out.
Perhaps by hiding this evidence.
And they did there best to hide it including saying that to show that date stamps of the analysis was a health and safety hazard.
Further, why do two analyses runs; what where they trying to turn up and then cover the validity by hiding the date stamps showing no calbration.
7.1 points out that the Lab said that full calibration curves existed but would not be provided for “ commercial” reasons.
Yet the production of such was a normal procedure so so much for commercial reasons.
But then,later,the legal dept of Kings College Anti Doping Lab stated very formally that no such contemporaneous calibration curves ever existed.
All this seems a massive coverup.
How long before Letsrun comes to Edwards salvation?
Letsrun highlight lots of issues of unfairness yet when something shows that the doping control system is tainted they do nothing.
Are they afraid that anti doping will not work if you apply the normal rules of justice.
Is this why American pro sport keeps away from Wada as they know that players will sue he’ll out of them?
This is facinating wrote:
Letsrun highlight lots of issues of unfairness yet when something shows that the doping control system is tainted they do nothing.
Are they afraid that anti doping will not work if you apply the normal rules of justice.
Is this why American pro sport keeps away from Wada as they know that players will sue he’ll out of them?
I agree,why will Letsrun not comment on the injustice of the Edwards case.
Letsrun reader wrote:
This is facinating wrote:
Letsrun highlight lots of issues of unfairness yet when something shows that the doping control system is tainted they do nothing.
Are they afraid that anti doping will not work if you apply the normal rules of justice.
Is this why American pro sport keeps away from Wada as they know that players will sue he’ll out of them?
I agree,why will Letsrun not comment on the injustice of the Edwards case.
How is it this case has been so long?
It had been going in for so long as all three of the bodies concerned are funded by one single source.
Some sort of incompetence or possibly worse at the onset and then all three being part hiding the evidence.