School science wrote:
Davis report wrote:
The ISO 17025 rules were to be fooled by the lab but were not .
Basic breaches on a sample that seems to have belong to someone other than Edwards.
Who gave Edwards sample?
School science wrote:
Davis report wrote:
The ISO 17025 rules were to be fooled by the lab but were not .
Basic breaches on a sample that seems to have belong to someone other than Edwards.
Who gave Edwards sample?
New urine wrote:
School science wrote:
Basic breaches on a sample that seems to have belong to someone other than Edwards.
Who gave Edwards sample?
Had to be someone else as Edwards only gave enough urine for 10 aliquots and they did 60.
And there was a report that the sample had leaked prior to getting to the lab and UKS refused to allow Edwards to investigate this report.
More hidden evidence
Why do 60 aliquots ?
What were they up to.
You would only do that if you were after a result that was not there in the earlier analysis.
Or you had made mistakes earlier, but then you should have ditched the results and got a totally fresh sample.
Most prob some contamination and thus fresh sample re calibrate the mass spec
Parliamentary Reporter wrote:
This letter from a senior academic is dynamite.
How did UK Sport get away with misleading the Minister of Sport in this way .
No review of the new evidence that UK Sport and Kings College hid for years and years .
I asked this last year and still no answer to how the Minister was so badly informed
Mass spec dude wrote:
Why do 60 aliquots ?
What were they up to.
You would only do that if you were after a result that was not there in the earlier analysis.
Or you had made mistakes earlier, but then you should have ditched the results and got a totally fresh sample.
Most prob some contamination and thus fresh sample re calibrate the mass spec
I agree.
And they knew it was Edward’s sample when they were working on the A sample.
This is in itself a breach of all the anti doping codes.
Parliamentary reporter wrote:
Parliamentary Reporter wrote:
This letter from a senior academic is dynamite.
How did UK Sport get away with misleading the Minister of Sport in this way .
No review of the new evidence that UK Sport and Kings College hid for years and years .
I asked this last year and still no answer to how the Minister was so badly informed
Why say there was no new evidence when there was lots all hidden from the hearings.
Davis report wrote:
Mass spec dude wrote:
Why do 60 aliquots ?
What were they up to.
You would only do that if you were after a result that was not there in the earlier analysis.
Or you had made mistakes earlier, but then you should have ditched the results and got a totally fresh sample.
Most prob some contamination and thus fresh sample re calibrate the mass spec
I agree.
And they knew it was Edward’s sample when they were working on the A sample.
This is in itself a breach of all the anti doping codes.
So how did they get away with a prosecution based on such appalling science?
Mass spec dude wrote:
Why do 60 aliquots ?
What were they up to.
You would only do that if you were after a result that was not there in the earlier analysis.
Or you had made mistakes earlier, but then you should have ditched the results and got a totally fresh sample.
Most prob some contamination and thus fresh sample re calibrate the mass spec
Looks as if a lot of real irregularities took place.
Hansard wrote:
Parliamentary reporter wrote:
I asked this last year and still no answer to how the Minister was so badly informed
Why say there was no new evidence when there was lots all hidden from the hearings.
What about insult to injury by the sample being opened with a hacksaw.
Mass spec dude wrote:
Why do 60 aliquots ?
What were they up to.
You would only do that if you were after a result that was not there in the earlier analysis.
Or you had made mistakes earlier, but then you should have ditched the results and got a totally fresh sample.
Most prob some contamination and thus fresh sample re calibrate the mass spec
Appalling, what where they up to and they knew who’s sample it was.
Still bizzare wrote:
Mass spec dude wrote:
Why do 60 aliquots ?
What were they up to.
You would only do that if you were after a result that was not there in the earlier analysis.
Or you had made mistakes earlier, but then you should have ditched the results and got a totally fresh sample.
Most prob some contamination and thus fresh sample re calibrate the mass spec
Appalling, what where they up to and they knew who’s sample it was.
Knowing who’s sample is was when tested is and always has been against the anti doping rules.
Why is Edwards banned?
Wada type voice wrote:
Still bizzare wrote:
Appalling, what where they up to and they knew who’s sample it was.
Knowing who’s sample is was when tested is and always has been against the anti doping rules.
Why is Edwards banned?
I have read that not only did they know who gave the sample they also opened it with a hacksaw.
Dr Simon Davis report wrote:
What do the experts think of this wrote:
This paper needs reading again.
I agree, the Davis report must be read as it is dynamite.
Usada supporter wrote:
I agree, the Davis report must be read as it is dynamite.
Can’t see Usada ever carrying on a case after the hidden evidence appeared
Professor Cowen who did the analyses and was also dealing with the financIal contract for the testing with UKS has suddenly resigned.
Kings College observer wrote:
Professor Cowen who did the analyses and was also dealing with the financIal contract for the testing with UKS has suddenly resigned.
Not only did he retire but he went on record in his recent interview saying that in the early days, such as when Edwards’ sample was collected, they were in over their heads with the entire process as it was new to them and they were only familiar with doing actual testing, which even that is something they clearly struggled with. The collection process specifically was not something they knew much about.
OP of thread wrote:
Kings College observer wrote:
Professor Cowen who did the analyses and was also dealing with the financIal contract for the testing with UKS has suddenly resigned.
Not only did he retire but he went on record in his recent interview saying that in the early days, such as when Edwards’ sample was collected, they were in over their heads with the entire process as it was new to them and they were only familiar with doing actual testing, which even that is something they clearly struggled with. The collection process specifically was not something they knew much about.
Another Limey messed up.
Usada would never have fouled up and then covered up.
Usada supporter wrote:
OP of thread wrote:
Not only did he retire but he went on record in his recent interview saying that in the early days, such as when Edwards’ sample was collected, they were in over their heads with the entire process as it was new to them and they were only familiar with doing actual testing, which even that is something they clearly struggled with. The collection process specifically was not something they knew much about.
Another Limey messed up.
Usada would never have fouled up and then covered up.
Did he go because of pressure caused by the Edwards case?
Silly question ? wrote:
Usada supporter wrote:
Another Limey messed up.
Usada would never have fouled up and then covered up.
Did he go because of pressure caused by the Edwards case?
Is that a joke? There is no pressure from the Edwards case. Paul Edwards is poor and has no social media presence, thus the perception is that he doesn't matter. Give him $10M and 5M followers on Instagram and see how quick his case gets overturned.