What's the explanation given for the first test where steroids, amphetamines, etc. were found? It may not be the point in which Mr. Edwards is contesting, but it shapes public opinion, which is important in this case.
What's the explanation given for the first test where steroids, amphetamines, etc. were found? It may not be the point in which Mr. Edwards is contesting, but it shapes public opinion, which is important in this case.
Bronson, esq wrote:
What's the explanation given for the first test where steroids, amphetamines, etc. were found? It may not be the point in which Mr. Edwards is contesting, but it shapes public opinion, which is important in this case.
Public opinion should not be shaped by the faults and manipulation of the second test . That is the way justice works .
The West Mids Police felt that as many where clearly guilty in their minds that " stitching up " was ok .
We hade PACE following .
So join this century and see each individual case on the merits of the evidence .
Michelle V wrote:
Michelle V wrote:Not being dismissive of first test only that this set of posts is about the second test .
You have avoided any comment about the points raised about the second test .I assume you are as biased as those that manipulated the production of the evidence in this second case .How do you view the points raised ?
I am biased to be honest because everyone who fails a test claims to be innocent. I don't know everything about the 2nd test but it definitely needs looking into further.
I'm concerned with the first one as get found so many substances.
Paul edwards wrote:
Could not get much data from ist test so unclear about that.However in2009 kcl told foi investigator they did not routinely do calabration for any athletes samples This negligence is now impossible under current wada protocol in any case so many mistakes with sampling and testing this almost seems academic point everything was invalid.
Thanks for the reply. I have personally experienced government departments screwing up things so good luck
I wasn't aware what they found as when we went to send expert to exam test which my sponsor was paying for the b test had been done before we had information about the test .
Amphetamines is not correct. Never heard that before professor Makin and professor Taylor found many fatal , and basic procedures broken and wrote a report saying this did not make sense etc .
ukathleticscoach wrote:
Michelle V wrote:Not being dismissive of first test only that this set of posts is about the second test .
You have avoided any comment about the points raised about the second test .I assume you are as biased as those that manipulated the production of the evidence in this second case .How do you view the points raised ?
I am biased to be honest because everyone who fails a test claims to be innocent. I don't know everything about the 2nd test but it definitely needs looking into further.
I'm concerned with the first one as get found so many substances.
Remember the scene in The Shawshank Redemption, where all the prisoners claimed to be innocent? 😉 classic.
Paul edwards wrote:
I wasn't aware what they found as when we went to send expert to exam test which my sponsor was paying for the b test had been done before we had information about the test .
I would seem that the first test had fatal flaws as the B test took place without notification .
That is why Edwards was due to be reinstated .
There was to be a test prior to this reinstatement and it is thhis test all these posts have been about.
Edwards knew about this test as did the testing authorities .
We then have hacksawed bottles , no calibration data and substituted urine .
Further the test was done by a family member of the authorities.
So message to all , inc the suddenly silent ukatleticscoach, deal with the stitch up of the latter test .!
Michelle V wrote:
Paul edwards wrote:I wasn't aware what they found as when we went to send expert to exam test which my sponsor was paying for the b test had been done before we had information about the test .
I would seem that the first test had fatal flaws as the B test took place without notification .
That is why Edwards was due to be reinstated .
There was to be a test prior to this reinstatement and it is thhis test all these posts have been about.
Edwards knew about this test as did the testing authorities .
We then have hacksawed bottles , no calibration data and substituted urine .
Further the test was done by a family member of the authorities.
So message to all , inc the suddenly silent ukatleticscoach, deal with the stitch up of the latter test .!
Why is this case so confusing? Can we not get the facts out about what he tested positive for definitively in the first test? Whether it was legitimate or not, what was he accused of the first test? What was he accused of the second test?
It should take no more than one paragraph each to explain the first and second test and why those tests were not legitimate. I've read through the entire thread and still don't understand what's going on. How difficult can this be?
Bronson, esq wrote:
Michelle V wrote:I would seem that the first test had fatal flaws as the B test took place without notification .
That is why Edwards was due to be reinstated .
There was to be a test prior to this reinstatement and it is thhis test all these posts have been about.
Edwards knew about this test as did the testing authorities .
We then have hacksawed bottles , no calibration data and substituted urine .
Further the test was done by a family member of the authorities.
So message to all , inc the suddenly silent ukatleticscoach, deal with the stitch up of the latter test .!
Why is this case so confusing? Can we not get the facts out about what he tested positive for definitively in the first test? Whether it was legitimate or not, what was he accused of the first test? What was he accused of the second test?
It should take no more than one paragraph each to explain the first and second test and why those tests were not legitimate. I've read through the entire thread and still don't understand what's going on. How difficult can this be?
The first test is not relevant to the stick up on the second except that he was to be cleared .
It was a T: E offence for the second .
For the real dunderheads who can't or refuse to keep up there was a series of mistakes .
Sample went missing and the chain as much as could be seen had massive and fatal contradictions .
No calibration data , even though said it existed and the hearing panel assured it did . Massive coverup to determine the data did not exist .
60 tests done until outlier result "found " but not enough urine to do such tests .Thus substuted urine well before the Russians caught hold of this ploy .
Sample bottle had to be hacksawed open.
Now Bronson and U.K. athletics coach prove that you are not dunderheads and deal with these mistakes .
Michelle V,
I understand if you're tied to Paul and feel emotional, but I'm asking a legitimate question and think a lot of other people feel the same way. Maybe you've been dealing with his case for a long time and know all about it, but it's confusing.
For starters, if the first test was faulty as well, we should know why. If it's not disputed, then that's fine, but to act as if it has no relevance is stupid. People who cheat will tend to cheat again. I'm not saying Paul ever did cheat, but it would be interesting to know what went on with the first test and how it did or did not differ from the second test. That's all.
I've seen the written documentation that the cap was hacksawed off, which is outrageous, absolutely. Where is the documentation that were 60 tests? Was it actually 60 on the dot? Not 59 or 61?
There are obviously a lot of red flags and it looks like a mess, but saying the same thing over and over is not helping Paul's cause.
Bronson, esq wrote:
Michelle V,
I understand if you're tied to Paul and feel emotional, but I'm asking a legitimate question and think a lot of other people feel the same way. Maybe you've been dealing with his case for a long time and know all about it, but it's confusing.
For starters, if the first test was faulty as well, we should know why. If it's not disputed, then that's fine, but to act as if it has no relevance is stupid. People who cheat will tend to cheat again. I'm not saying Paul ever did cheat, but it would be interesting to know what went on with the first test and how it did or did not differ from the second test. That's all.
I've seen the written documentation that the cap was hacksawed off, which is outrageous, absolutely. Where is the documentation that were 60 tests? Was it actually 60 on the dot? Not 59 or 61?
There are obviously a lot of red flags and it looks like a mess, but saying the same thing over and over is not helping Paul's cause.
The basics of justice and the courts is that previous is only taken into account at sentencing . Otherwise any evaluation of the second test is prejudiced , which is exactly how it was handled .
I am pleased that there should be a reaction to part of the failing of the second test . Edwards is and has been trying to get the files of the evidence on letsrun but seemingly letsrun can't help .
Much is on Facebook
I know this sounds very far-fetched but all that we’ve been discussing on the forum It’s all matter-of-fact evidence base six different legal experts throughout the world +3 experts that are used .The reasons for this is they never wanted this to go into the publicDomain I follow the legal route to know about that’s why I went public so the evidence has never ever been looked at independently
23 boxes of paperwork over 23 years not Easy is still being covered up now
We thank the London Lab and GB testers showing us via the Edwards case how to manipulate and cover up the correct results .
If it had not been for our Lab head we would never ever have got cought .
Our testers visited your lab prior to London and we are very pleased we were told what you could and could not detect .
In 1997 it was 57 tests I remember from Dr S Davies report.
The first test in 1994 was disputed and criticised by Professor Makin and others. In those days they could get away with witholding the test data and Paul could never get any details to examine. This kind of Star Chamber secrecy is no longer possible.
For the second test Paul manged to extract the full test data and forensic examination showed it to be nonsense, being full of invalid steps and elementary procedural and technical errors. These were compounded by evasion and misinformation by the authorities over long periods for reasons unknown. A High Court defence of Paul's complaint was not attempted because, frankly, the scientific case against Paul was and is non-existent and therefore indefensible. It is not confusing - it is blatantly obvious that Paul is innocent and the injustice must be put right.
All the evidence documents proving that there is no case against Paul are available. There is and never was any valid evidence showing his guilt. What are we waiting for?
In addition I think it is worth noting the most eminent Max Beloff QC and leading CAS member said that he noted the Calibration Data had not been provided but he was assured that it did exist and was in order .
At this point he accepted such assurances from Prof Cowen and the matter was glossed over .
Only to reappear many years latter and after thousands of pages of extra data and refusals to provide that , actually ,the data never did exist.
By then the case had been declared closed .
Joe Eastwood wrote:
In 1997 it was 57 tests I remember from Dr S Davies report.
The first test in 1994 was disputed and criticised by Professor Makin and others. In those days they could get away with witholding the test data and Paul could never get any details to examine. This kind of Star Chamber secrecy is no longer possible.
For the second test Paul manged to extract the full test data and forensic examination showed it to be nonsense, being full of invalid steps and elementary procedural and technical errors. These were compounded by evasion and misinformation by the authorities over long periods for reasons unknown. A High Court defence of Paul's complaint was not attempted because, frankly, the scientific case against Paul was and is non-existent and therefore indefensible. It is not confusing - it is blatantly obvious that Paul is innocent and the injustice must be put right.
All the evidence documents proving that there is no case against Paul are available. There is and never was any valid evidence showing his guilt. What are we waiting for?
How many tests can be reasonably run with the amount of blood/urine that is taken in a doping test?
Would the CAS have any place in this case in terms of appeal?
They said case closed no right of appeal with anyone
UK Athletics UK Sport and King’s College London .GaveMaria Miller mp Andrew hunter mp the run round passing the buck to various organisations .