Too long wrote:
I have heard it has gone on so long as they are fearing that someone will get done for perversion of justice.
There is no reason why the reprocussians won’t end up in a criminal prosecution.
Too long wrote:
I have heard it has gone on so long as they are fearing that someone will get done for perversion of justice.
There is no reason why the reprocussians won’t end up in a criminal prosecution.
They opened his sample with a hacksaw.
Davis report wrote:
They opened his sample with a hacksaw.
The Russians improved on this in Sochi, how did the Lab get away with this crude technique in the Edwards case?
Mechanic 2 wrote:
Davis report wrote:
They opened his sample with a hacksaw.
The Russians improved on this in Sochi, how did the Lab get away with this crude technique in the Edwards case?
How did they get away with loosing the sample in the Edwards case?
Davis report wrote:
Mechanic 2 wrote:
The Russians improved on this in Sochi, how did the Lab get away with this crude technique in the Edwards case?
How did they get away with loosing the sample in the Edwards case?
A hacksaw and a lost sample,how did this even reach a hearing?
Mechanic 2 wrote:
Davis report wrote:
How did they get away with loosing the sample in the Edwards case?
A hacksaw and a lost sample,how did this even reach a hearing?
All the funding came from one source, is that why it went to a hearing?
That funding source could not be seen a making a mistake.
In any other lab not doing contemporaneous calibration curves would be a very serious matter.
But in the Edwards case most involved got honours/ promotions.
Davis report wrote:
In any other lab not doing contemporaneous calibration curves would be a very serious matter.
But in the Edwards case most involved got honours/ promotions.
They hid this failure to follow proper science by saying the curves had been done but Edwards could not see them as to do so would be a Health and Safety offence.
Then when that was shown to be a stupidly they eventually had to say that no calibrations done.
Davis report wrote:
Davis report wrote:
In any other lab not doing contemporaneous calibration curves would be a very serious matter.
But in the Edwards case most involved got honours/ promotions.
They hid this failure to follow proper science by saying the curves had been done but Edwards could not see them as to do so would be a Health and Safety offence.
Then when that was shown to be a stupidly they eventually had to say that no calibrations done.
No cal curves ;the test is invalid.
No wonder they hid all this until after the hearings.
Science teacher wrote:
Davis report wrote:
They hid this failure to follow proper science by saying the curves had been done but Edwards could not see them as to do so would be a Health and Safety offence.
Then when that was shown to be a stupidly they eventually had to say that no calibrations done.
No cal curves ;the test is invalid.
No wonder they hid all this until after the hearings.
How can you even attempt to withhold calibration curves on the basis that giving them would be a breach of health and Safety laws.
What were they trying to hide?
Was all this not subject to a debate in Parliament?
How did they get away with the hidden evidence!
Hansard wrote:
Was all this not subject to a debate in Parliament?
How did they get away with the hidden evidence!
One very major figure in all this lost their job in still unexplained circumstances at the same time.
Was this anything to do with the debate in Parliament and the hidden evidence.
We need to be told.
Hansard wrote:
Hansard wrote:
Was all this not subject to a debate in Parliament?
How did they get away with the hidden evidence!
One very major figure in all this lost their job in still unexplained circumstances at the same time.
Was this anything to do with the debate in Parliament and the hidden evidence.
We need to be told.
I have no idea who this person could possibly be; just no idea.
Michelle V wrote:
Hansard wrote:
One very major figure in all this lost their job in still unexplained circumstances at the same time.
Was this anything to do with the debate in Parliament and the hidden evidence.
We need to be told.
I have no idea who this person could possibly be; just no idea.
I just do not believe you Michelle.
Hansard wrote:
Michelle V wrote:
I have no idea who this person could possibly be; just no idea.
I just do not believe you Michelle.
Seems to me covering up in Parliament.
I would guess someone has been covering up the following.
No calibration.
Someone else’s urine tested.
Monitoring and reporting on a non banned compound.
Sample going missing.
Sample opened with a hacksaw.
The A sample tested when the Lab knew who gave the sample.
The same Lab staff doing both the analysis and the financial contract for the analysis.This is a direct breach of ISO 17025 and should in itself invalidate analysis.
Contaminated water blank.
The above is only a fraction of that covered up.
Davis report wrote:
I would guess someone has been covering up the following.
No calibration.
Someone else’s urine tested.
Monitoring and reporting on a non banned compound.
Sample going missing.
Sample opened with a hacksaw.
The A sample tested when the Lab knew who gave the sample.
The same Lab staff doing both the analysis and the financial contract for the analysis.This is a direct breach of ISO 17025 and should in itself invalidate analysis.
Contaminated water blank.
The above is only a fraction of that covered up.
It was thought that it was a super idea to hide the evendence by claiming that to give it would have been injurious to Edwards health.
Pity the Data Commissioner refused to accept this and then there was a problem that having said we had the data we then had to provide it.This then ended up with admitting we never had the calibration data in the first place.
So much for bright thinking.
Kings thinker wrote:
Davis report wrote:
I would guess someone has been covering up the following.
No calibration.
Someone else’s urine tested.
Monitoring and reporting on a non banned compound.
Sample going missing.
Sample opened with a hacksaw.
The A sample tested when the Lab knew who gave the sample.
The same Lab staff doing both the analysis and the financial contract for the analysis.This is a direct breach of ISO 17025 and should in itself invalidate analysis.
Contaminated water blank.
The above is only a fraction of that covered up.
It was thought that it was a super idea to hide the evendence by claiming that to give it would have been injurious to Edwards health.
Pity the Data Commissioner refused to accept this and then there was a problem that having said we had the data we then had to provide it.This then ended up with admitting we never had the calibration data in the first place.
So much for bright thinking.
Nothing to do with me!
Michelle V wrote:
Kings thinker wrote:
It was thought that it was a super idea to hide the evendence by claiming that to give it would have been injurious to Edwards health.
Pity the Data Commissioner refused to accept this and then there was a problem that having said we had the data we then had to provide it.This then ended up with admitting we never had the calibration data in the first place.
So much for bright thinking.
Nothing to do with me!
Well well Michelle; we don’t believe you.
Bronwynn wrote:
2 debates by Andrew hunter mp and Maria miller both on Hansard 2002 by Andrew hunter 2007 by Maria miller I've seen them so no joke
Having got the evidence from the Davis report it should now be clear who covered up in the debates.