Nob ed wrote:
Nob ed wrote:
It was not just garden leave, sacked as well.
I have read on this thread that the drug tester was the husband of the women the worked in the anti doping office along side Veroken.[/quote
What was the name of the drug tester; did he go from being unemployed to head of uk tennis?
No, went to Sport England prior to Tennis; still utterly remarkable.
The DCO could not remember what he did with the sample.
Nob ed wrote:
Nob ed wrote:
I have read on this thread that the drug tester was the husband of the women the worked in the anti doping office along side Veroken.
What was the name of the drug tester; did he go from being unemployed to head of uk tennis?
Roger Draper .
So it was Draper who could not remember what he did with the Edwards sample and yet the chain of custody was deem ok.
Informant 1 wrote:
Nob ed wrote:
What was the name of the drug tester; did he go from being unemployed to head of uk tennis?
Roger Draper .
Seems to me there’s been a break of the data protection act and the freedom of information act as well .
Canna worms wrote:
Informant 1 wrote:
Roger Draper .
Seems to me there’s been a break of the data protection act and the freedom of information act as well .
The last thing you want to have is the truth uncovered by the above.
I have read that they tried to use health and safety law to stop Edwards seeing his own data from the test.
Nob ed wrote:
So it was Draper who could not remember what he did with the Edwards sample and yet the chain of custody was deem ok.
I also read with this thread that UK Sport refused to provide evidence that may well have explained what happened to the sample.
Why did they refuse?
Nob ed wrote:
Nob ed wrote:
So it was Draper who could not remember what he did with the Edwards sample and yet the chain of custody was deem ok.
I also read with this thread that UK Sport refused to provide evidence that may well have explained what happened to the sample.
Why did they refuse?
The DHL waybill was as never used.
Yet the Draper, the DCO, said that he did use DHL but could not remember the detail.
His expenses sheet would have shown what he did but a precise request for this was refused.
Michelle V wrote:
Nob ed wrote:
I also read with this thread that UK Sport refused to provide evidence that may well have explained what happened to the sample.
Why did they refuse?
The DHL waybill was as never used.
Yet the Draper, the DCO, said that he did use DHL but could not remember the detail.
His expenses sheet would have shown what he did but a precise request for this was refused.
DHL waybill is normally considered as evidence.
Was any of the missing sample mess tied up with using a hacksaw to open the sample?
Uk lawyer wrote:
Was any of the missing sample mess tied up with using a hacksaw to open the sample?
Yes whole thing ties all together.
Get Edwards!
Davis report wrote:
The Lab measured the wrong compound and not the one that was banned and they hid this evidence,pesistantly.
This alone should have cleared Edwards
Davis report wrote:
Davis report wrote:
The Lab measured the wrong compound and not the one that was banned and they hid this evidence,pesistantly.
This alone should have cleared Edwards
It should be necessary to re point out that the evidence hidden from the hearing showed they declared a positive for a compound that was NOT testosterone.
Davis report wrote:
Davis report wrote:
This alone should have cleared Edwards
It should be necessary to re point out that the evidence hidden from the hearing showed they declared a positive for a compound that was NOT testosterone.
So he could have had a positive declared; what a way to demonstrate a duty of care to the athlete.
Nob ed wrote:
Davis report wrote:
It should be necessary to re point out that the evidence hidden from the hearing showed they declared a positive for a compound that was NOT testosterone.
So he could have had a positive declared; what a way to demonstrate a duty of care to the athlete.
This should have said....could not have a positive declared.
Davis report wrote:
Davis report wrote:
The Lab measured the wrong compound and not the one that was banned and they hid this evidence,pesistantly.
This alone should have cleared Edwards
Like drunk driving and getting banned cos they said you had too much Pepsi
ISO 17025 wrote:
To remind; that the head of the Lab was closely involved with the contract with UKS and was the same person who did the analysis.
This is expressly forbidden by the quality management system that applied.
I would assume the reason would be that the person would did the work on the sample was completely separate from the pressures of the conflict of interest.
Yet ISO 17025 breached.
How come no cal data done, wrong ion monitored and fake urine appearing?
Worth a posting again.
ISO 17025 wrote:
ISO 17025 wrote:
To remind; that the head of the Lab was closely involved with the contract with UKS and was the same person who did the analysis.
This is expressly forbidden by the quality management system that applied.
I would assume the reason would be that the person would did the work on the sample was completely separate from the pressures of the conflict of interest.
Yet ISO 17025 breached.
How come no cal data done, wrong ion monitored and fake urine appearing?
Worth a posting again.
Gross ethical errors let alone scientific mistakes.
Honest wrote:
Honest wrote:
This report speaks volumes for the integrity and credibility testing should not be done .I note this would’ve been thrown out at the very first day of test
Kings College his the evidence that allowed Dr Davis to write the report.
Michelle V wrote:
Honest wrote:
Kings College his the evidence that allowed Dr Davis to write the report.
Why Did prof Cowan mislead House of Commons when the data ie evidence never exsisted.What reason ?