matt_london_413 wrote:
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.
Given the science provided your comment stands alone as those of a person with very limited intelligence.
Queens Council wrote:
Is that the Beloff who is on CAS and had written books on sports law?
Yes; I think that was so.
He came across Dr Davis when he lost against him in the case of that Jamaican femalesprinter .
It is clear beyond doubt that Edwards did not get a fair trial.
We thus have no idea if he is guilty or not.
He must be reinstated pending a new trial and if evidence had previously been manipulated then those guilty should be subject to legal process.
Great stuff from Letsrun in the Caster case and her being XY; brilliant.
But why do they ignore the Edwards case of misjustice?
Damn clear wrote:
It is clear beyond doubt that Edwards did not get a fair trial.
We thus have no idea if he is guilty or not.
He must be reinstated pending a new trial and if evidence had previously been manipulated then those guilty should be subject to legal process.
Government minister investigating prof Cowan misleading parliament in Edwards case .
Secret process wrote:
Damn clear wrote:
It is clear beyond doubt that Edwards did not get a fair trial.
We thus have no idea if he is guilty or not.
He must be reinstated pending a new trial and if evidence had previously been manipulated then those guilty should be subject to legal process.
Government minister investigating prof Cowan misleading parliament in Edwards case .
Now this is sensational.
Will Letsrun now pay attention to the way Parliament was mislead?
Once a Minister starts investingating being mislead then the can of worms slops out.
They are still after Sky and Coe.
Come on Letsrun, after the great story on Caster Semenya , have a go at the Edwards case.
Secret process wrote:
Damn clear wrote:
It is clear beyond doubt that Edwards did not get a fair trial.
We thus have no idea if he is guilty or not.
He must be reinstated pending a new trial and if evidence had previously been manipulated then those guilty should be subject to legal process.
Government minister investigating prof Cowan misleading parliament in Edwards case .
I understand legal documents have been presented to the minister stating there is data that exists which was asked for atOriginal hearing by the QC Michael BelhoffNearly 10 years later it was confirmed by data protection and the freedom of information act that they never existed . So if there is no data there is no test .
Secret process wrote:
Secret process wrote:
Government minister investigating prof Cowan misleading parliament in Edwards case .
I understand legal documents have been presented to the minister stating there is data that exists which was asked for atOriginal hearing by the QC Michael BelhoffNearly 10 years later it was confirmed by data protection and the freedom of information act that they never existed . So if there is no data there is no test .
What roll did UKS have in this cover up?
It was UKS that provided the “ explanation from Cowen”.
Did they know from the contract between them and Cowen at Kings that no contemporaneous cal data was done by Cowen?
Why was the head of UKS anti doping put on garden leave very shortly after the debate on Edwards in Parliament?
Michelle V wrote:
Secret process wrote:
I understand legal documents have been presented to the minister stating there is data that exists which was asked for atOriginal hearing by the QC Michael BelhoffNearly 10 years later it was confirmed by data protection and the freedom of information act that they never existed . So if there is no data there is no test .
What roll did UKS have in this cover up?
It was UKS that provided the “ explanation from Cowen”.
Did they know from the contract between them and Cowen at Kings that no contemporaneous cal data was done by Cowen?
Why was the head of UKS anti doping put on garden leave very shortly after the debate on Edwards in Parliament?
Who was put on garden leave ?
Did said personage ever return to the job?
Nob ed wrote:
Michelle V wrote:
What roll did UKS have in this cover up?
It was UKS that provided the “ explanation from Cowen”.
Did they know from the contract between them and Cowen at Kings that no contemporaneous cal data was done by Cowen?
Why was the head of UKS anti doping put on garden leave very shortly after the debate on Edwards in Parliament?
Who was put on garden leave ?
Did said personage ever return to the job?
I can’t recall who it was but I am sure it was someone of significance.
Perhaps someone could help.
I remember UKS being selectively very proactive in the Modahl case. I think they were minded to take on their own assumptions of guilt or innocence and drove the process accordingly.
Michelle V wrote:
Nob ed wrote:
Who was put on garden leave ?
Did said personage ever return to the job?
I can’t recall who it was but I am sure it was someone of significance.
Perhaps someone could help.
I remember UKS being selectively very proactive in the Modahl case. I think they were minded to take on their own assumptions of guilt or innocence and drove the process accordingly.
It was Michelle veroken head of Uk anti doping .wow
Informer. wrote:
Michelle V wrote:
I can’t recall who it was but I am sure it was someone of significance.
Perhaps someone could help.
I remember UKS being selectively very proactive in the Modahl case. I think they were minded to take on their own assumptions of guilt or innocence and drove the process accordingly.
It was Michelle veroken head of Uk anti doping .wow
So it was she who was put on garden leave at the time of the Parliamentary debate on Edwards and then lost he job not long afterwards.This can’t be believed , must be a mistake.
Did she sign the contract between UKS and Kings College and negotiationed such with Prof Cowen?
Michelle V wrote:
Informer. wrote:
It was Michelle veroken head of Uk anti doping .wow
So it was she who was put on garden leave at the time of the Parliamentary debate on Edwards and then lost he job not long afterwards.This can’t be believed , must be a mistake.
Did she sign the contract between UKS and Kings College and negotiationed such with Prof Cowen?
Can’t see it anyway other than they were the two parties that negotiated the contract.
But what is wrong with that?
Kings College notary wrote:
Michelle V wrote:
So it was she who was put on garden leave at the time of the Parliamentary debate on Edwards and then lost he job not long afterwards.This can’t be believed , must be a mistake.
Did she sign the contract between UKS and Kings College and negotiationed such with Prof Cowen?
Can’t see it anyway other than they were the two parties that negotiated the contract.
But what is wrong with that?
Lots!
The basis of the testing and the analysis was that it must comply with ISO 17025 which, besides needing contemporaneous calibration curves specially said that the person who did the analysis must not be the person who was involved in the contact negotiations.
Thus,the analysis was in material breach of contract between Kings College and UKS; between UKS and UKA ; and between UKA and Edwards.
As such the analysis has to be dismissed as having no validity.
Iso 17025 wrote:
Kings College notary wrote:
Can’t see it anyway other than they were the two parties that negotiated the contract.
But what is wrong with that?
Lots!
The basis of the testing and the analysis was that it must comply with ISO 17025 which, besides needing contemporaneous calibration curves specially said that the person who did the analysis must not be the person who was involved in the contact negotiations.
Thus,the analysis was in material breach of contract between Kings College and UKS; between UKS and UKA ; and between UKA and Edwards.
As such the analysis has to be dismissed as having no validity.
I agree; results invalid and thus Edwards cleared.
Malfeasance in public office can have a lifetime prison sentence.
Does anyone think that some significant people might be seen in court over this case esp as they conspired to that end?
Beagle for the eagle wrote:
Malfeasance in public office can have a lifetime prison sentence.
Does anyone think that some significant people might be seen in court over this case esp as they conspired to that end?
Would be really funny if the first person to do jail time in sports doping was one of the doping police.
There has never been a police to control doping police.Perhaps the Edwards case will force there to be an independent control over the doping controllers.
Michelle V wrote:
Beagle for the eagle wrote:
Malfeasance in public office can have a lifetime prison sentence.
Does anyone think that some significant people might be seen in court over this case esp as they conspired to that end?
Would be really funny if the first person to do jail time in sports doping was one of the doping police.
There has never been a police to control doping police.Perhaps the Edwards case will force there to be an independent control over the doping controllers.
Misconduct in public office,a life time prison sentence, now that should sharpen the wits of doping control.