Great stuff wrote:
More news wrote:
Letsrun editors , who have a self proclaimed high moral stance against injustice ,are now very interested in the Edwards case.
Esp they are perplexed as to who’s urine was actually tested as according to the labs own declarations it could never have been Edwards.
Great that the brothers are going to do something, it needs someone to moan about the hidden evidence.
Letsrun bothers have still done nowt.
Just cheeking wrote:
Great stuff wrote:
Great that the brothers are going to do something, it needs someone to moan about the hidden evidence.
Letsrun bothers have still done nowt.
I would highly recommend the Bros read the paper written by Dr Davis on the fatal flaws at Kings College.
Justice and fairness wrote:
Davis report wrote:
How can the anti doping be credible if this going on .
Uk sport refused to allow any of its staff to respond in any way to solving the questions raised by the Davis paper.
A paper which could and was only written when evidence refused by UKS was finally released.
How is that when the mission statement professes transparency?
Michelle V wrote:
Justice and fairness wrote:
How is that when the mission statement professes transparency?
They funded all the parties involved so no wonder UK Sport did not want their roll exposed.
Who provided the urine in the Edwards case?
Ultraboy wrote:
Look I am asking for he questions I want to ask to find out about the 1994 tests and ban. If there was a process to appeal the 97 ban or get it reviewed again then insure Mr Edwards would have taken it. So why m going to make the assumption that legal options have been exhausted and the reason for this campaign is that you need public opinion to support changing the process to allow him to appeal the decision.
If it’s about public opinion then the 94 testis very much pertinent. So I am keen to find out what has and hasn’t been done.
When I tak about appealing I am referring to the High Vourt case brought by Mr Edwards, which was not arguing he was innocent but that he shouldn’t be banned for 4 years as other countries only banned for 2. I’m asking why his case wasn’t that he should not be banned at all, because the tests were faulty. I am asking this as it seems pertinent.
Is Ultraboy still alive, a man of great intelligence. Be nice to hear what he has to say.
Edwards still banned and Letsrun still does nothing.
Gruumpy wrote:
Look I am asking for he questions I want to ask to find out about the 1994 tests and ban. If there was a process to appeal the 97 ban or get it reviewed again then insure Mr Edwards would have taken it. So why m going to make the assumption that legal options have been exhausted and the reason for this campaign is that you need public opinion to support changing the process to allow him to appeal the decision.
If it’s about public opinion then the 94 testis very much pertinent. So I am keen to find out what has and hasn’t been done.
When I tak about appealing I am referring to the High Vourt case brought by Mr Edwards, which was not arguing he was innocent but that he shouldn’t be banned for 4 years as other countries only banned for 2. I’m asking why his case wasn’t that he should not be banned at all, because the tests were faulty. I am asking this as it seems pertinent.
Is Ultraboy still alive, a man of great intelligence. Be nice to hear what he has to say.[/quote]
The court case was a decision by lawyers not Edwards as they were still trying to get evidence .
Paul ed wrote:
Gruumpy wrote:
Look I am asking for he questions I want to ask to find out about the 1994 tests and ban. If there was a process to appeal the 97 ban or get it reviewed again then insure Mr Edwards would have taken it. So why m going to make the assumption that legal options have been exhausted and the reason for this campaign is that you need public opinion to support changing the process to allow him to appeal the decision.
If it’s about public opinion then the 94 testis very much pertinent. So I am keen to find out what has and hasn’t been done.
When I tak about appealing I am referring to the High Vourt case brought by Mr Edwards, which was not arguing he was innocent but that he shouldn’t be banned for 4 years as other countries only banned for 2. I’m asking why his case wasn’t that he should not be banned at all, because the tests were faulty. I am asking this as it seems pertinent.
Is Ultraboy still alive, a man of great intelligence. Be nice to hear what he has to say.
The court case was a decision by lawyers not Edwards as they were still trying to get evidence .[/quote]
There is a total cover up going on .
Hansard wrote:
Has Prof Cowen been sacked for such as breach of ISO 17025 and for substituting urine and for failure to do calibrationwork up?
Well has he been sacked ?
Mucky ducky wrote:
Hansard wrote:
Has Prof Cowen been sacked for such as breach of ISO 17025 and for substituting urine and for failure to do calibrationwork up?
Well has he been sacked ?
He stood down after 40 years .
Mucky ducky wrote:
Hansard wrote:
Has Prof Cowen been sacked for such as breach of ISO 17025 and for substituting urine and for failure to do calibrationwork up?
Well has he been sacked ?
Prof Cowan stood down
Lean Cuisine wrote:
If this guy is being wrongly accused it would be a travesty.
http://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1055133/edwards-re-launches-fight-against-doping-charges-through-new-facebook-page
He's from the UK.
The UK has a long history of steroid abuse.
They look at steroids over in the UK as some type of breakfast vitamin. Just like the Russians do.
This guy is deluded.
The UK is probably one of the biggest steroid using countries on the planet.
Don't get me started on UK female 400 meter runners who use Tren this very moment.
Fred martin wrote:
Mucky ducky wrote:
Well has he been sacked ?
Prof Cowan stood down
He is the person who did not do calibration data in the Edwards case.
Nob ed wrote:
Fred martin wrote:
Prof Cowan stood down
He is the person who did not do calibration data in the Edwards case.
What! No calibration data.How did the case get prosecuted?
Kings lab man wrote:
Nob ed wrote:
He is the person who did not do calibration data in the Edwards case.
What! No calibration data.How did the case get prosecuted?
No data no test .
Chris ghu wrote:
Kings lab man wrote:
What! No calibration data.How did the case get prosecuted?
No data no test .
Also someone else had to bring extra urine from someone to do the 60 analysts .
Appalling
Nob ed wrote:
Chris ghu wrote:
No data no test .
Also someone else had to bring extra urine from someone to do the 60 analysts .
Appalling
Cowen said he used 4ml aliquot for each analysis.
That’s 240 ml
I think Edwards sample was 80ml.
Make sense of that?
Truthy wrote:
Nob ed wrote:
Also someone else had to bring extra urine from someone to do the 60 analysts .
Appalling
Cowen said he used 4ml aliquot for each analysis.
That’s 240 ml
I think Edwards sample was 80ml.
Make sense of that?
The only sense is that it could not be Edwards’
urine that was analysed.
Nob ed wrote:
Truthy wrote:
Cowen said he used 4ml aliquot for each analysis.
That’s 240 ml
I think Edwards sample was 80ml.
Make sense of that?
The only sense is that it could not be Edwards’
urine that was analysed.
Correct ; and they hid this from the hearing and then UK Sport said this info was not new and was known to the hearing but it only came out years later via an FOI enquiry.
And UKS paid for the analysis.