Michelle V wrote:
Nob ed wrote:
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.
There seems something very very dodgy about the analysis.
I have also read that they knew it was Edwards’ sample when they did the A sample .
Truly appalling!
Nob ed wrote:
Michelle V wrote:
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.
There seems something very very dodgy about the analysis.
I have also read that they knew it was Edwards’ sample when they did the A sample .
Truly appalling!
Yes; they did know who’s sample it was when they were doing the A analysis.
How on Earth has this appalling science and cover ups been not overthrown
Edwards to run London Marathon as it is clear he is innocent.
Who opened Edwards sample with a hacksaw at Kings College?
Paul edwards wrote:
Kcl try to use wada rules to protect them when wada didn't exist in 1997 but calabration data has always been part of tests in fact at this time professor Cowan wrote papers for medical journals etc to verify how important calabration data was
Yet the doping lab went on to to admit they never did cal data.
Diy tool wrote:
Who opened Edwards sample with a hacksaw at Kings College?
The doping control lab staff.
Paul edwards brain wrote:
Diy tool wrote:
Who opened Edwards sample with a hacksaw at Kings College?
The doping control lab staff.
Are they allowed to hacksaw into sample?
More stuff on uk news about the paramount importance of disclosure of evidence.
In Edwards case it was withheld by many groups on the prosecution side.
Still pertinent wrote:
Paul edwards wrote:
Kcl try to use wada rules to protect them when wada didn't exist in 1997 but calabration data has always been part of tests in fact at this time professor Cowan wrote papers for medical journals etc to verify how important calabration data was
Yet the doping lab went on to to admit they never did cal data.
Did the hearing know this?
Nob ed wrote:
Michelle V wrote:
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.
There seems something very very dodgy about the analysis.
I have also read that they knew it was Edwards’ sample when they did the A sample .
Truly appalling!
Prof Cowan stood down December 2018’in original hearing in 1999 he said he had Cala data . 6 years later wrote to minister of state quoting he had data .foi and data protection requests 6 years later data never ever exsisted or even done .
Nob ed wrote:
Still pertinent wrote:
Yet the doping lab went on to to admit they never did cal data.
Did the hearing know this?
The hearing was told that cal data done even though not provided.
Michelle V wrote:
Nob ed wrote:
Did the hearing know this?
The hearing was told that cal data done even though not provided.
Who was the chair of the hearing that allowed Cowen not to provide the calibration data?
Nob ed wrote:
Michelle V wrote:
The hearing was told that cal data done even though not provided.
Who was the chair of the hearing that allowed Cowen not to provide the calibration data?
Can’t say; not allowed !
The lab opened the sample with a hacksaw.
Could not make it up.
Is hacksaw opening worse than urine substituted?
Or are the both part of the same lab horror story.
Found out secret wrote:
Nob ed wrote:
There seems something very very dodgy about the analysis.
I have also read that they knew it was Edwards’ sample when they did the A sample .
Truly appalling!
Prof Cowan stood down December 2018’in original hearing in 1999 he said he had Cala data . 6 years later wrote to minister of state quoting he had data .foi and data protection requests 6 years later data never ever exsisted or even done .
How did such an otherwise celebrated scientist get away with misinforming Parliament.
Nob ed wrote:
Michelle V wrote:
The hearing was told that cal data done even though not provided.
Who was the chair of the hearing that allowed Cowen not to provide the calibration data?
Qc Michael belhoff oh dear how embarrassing .
Is that the Beloff who is on CAS and had written books on sports law?
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
'
Nobody cares. He looks like crap.