Gg boy wrote:
Michelle V wrote:
Draper the drug tester in the Edwards case said he could not remember what he did with it but said he did use DHL but DHL’s waybill was never used.Bit if a contradiction.
And then the missing sample was opened with a hacksaw.
And they still did the analysis.This would not stand up in any court
No it would not and this leaves aside the hidden evidence
How many of the players in the Edwards case could end up in court for malfeasance in public office.
Malfeasance wrote:
How many of the players in the Edwards case could end up in court for malfeasance in public office.
Would not doing calibration data and then telling Parliament ( Minister for Sport,Cabourn be enough for a misconduct charge?
What if UKS also knew cal data not done but also kept such from Parliament ,would that be enough for a Court case to result?
Gerry pace wrote:
Malfeasance wrote:
How many of the players in the Edwards case could end up in court for malfeasance in public office.
Would not doing calibration data and then telling Parliament ( Minister for Sport,Cabourn be enough for a misconduct charge?
What if UKS also knew cal data not done but also kept such from Parliament ,would that be enough for a Court case to result?
The main problem would be the extent of public office offences 20 yrs ago but misleading Parliament would definitely been actionable then and know.
We then come to how many conspired to cause such misleading and cover up.
Cavern lawyer wrote:
Gerry pace wrote:
Would not doing calibration data and then telling Parliament ( Minister for Sport,Cabourn be enough for a misconduct charge?
What if UKS also knew cal data not done but also kept such from Parliament ,would that be enough for a Court case to result?
The main problem would be the extent of public office offences 20 yrs ago but misleading Parliament would definitely been actionable then and know.
We then come to how many conspired to cause such misleading and cover up.
There could also be a charge for conspiring to pervert the course of justice.
Gerry pace wrote:
Cavern lawyer wrote:
The main problem would be the extent of public office offences 20 yrs ago but misleading Parliament would definitely been actionable then and know.
We then come to how many conspired to cause such misleading and cover up.
There could also be a charge for conspiring to pervert the course of justice.
Any chance of a charge of misleading the Metropolitan Police as well
Gerry pace wrote:
Gerry pace wrote:
There could also be a charge for conspiring to pervert the course of justice.
Any chance of a charge of misleading the Metropolitan Police as well
The Minister said that the cal data could be provided but Kings College said they could not because of health and safety and then had to admit they had never existed.
Michelle V wrote:
Gerry pace wrote:
Any chance of a charge of misleading the Metropolitan Police as well
The Minister said that the cal data could be provided but Kings College said they could not because of health and safety and then had to admit they had never existed.
Health and safety used to hide evidence.
Explain!
Gerry pace wrote:
Michelle V wrote:
The Minister said that the cal data could be provided but Kings College said they could not because of health and safety and then had to admit they had never existed.
Health and safety used to hide evidence.
Explain!
Said that if Edwards could see how they did drug testing he could take drugs to avoid a positive and taking drugs would be a Health and Safety problem from which Edwards must be protected.
But such is nonsense even on the basis that Cowan had already published his exact methods in journals and even made reference to his papers at the hearing.
And, in other cases at the time Cowen did provide the contemporaneous calibration data to the athletes defence as part of the documents package.
A conclusion could be reasonably taken that the reason for witholding is that they never existed.
The information commissioner rejected the h and s argument and demanded the data be produced.
Then Kings had to admit they never ever had them.
This is clearly in contradiction with what Cowen informed Parliament.
Banged to rights on malfeasance in public office.
Possible life time prison term,!
Michelle V wrote:
Gerry pace wrote:
Health and safety used to hide evidence.
Explain!
Said that if Edwards could see how they did drug testing he could take drugs to avoid a positive and taking drugs would be a Health and Safety problem from which Edwards must be protected.
But such is nonsense even on the basis that Cowan had already published his exact methods in journals and even made reference to his papers at the hearing.
And, in other cases at the time Cowen did provide the contemporaneous calibration data to the athletes defence as part of the documents package.
A conclusion could be reasonably taken that the reason for witholding is that they never existed.
The information commissioner rejected the h and s argument and demanded the data be produced.
Then Kings had to admit they never ever had them.
This is clearly in contradiction with what Cowen informed Parliament.
Banged to rights on malfeasance in public office.
Possible life time prison term,!
Looks like all this is going to be a lot of fun for the new CEO of UK Athletics as they were part of this conspiracy.
A new ceo of track in the uk should look at the NCAA results and just give up immediately.Looks like the sport in the uk is already dead without the Edwards case to take it to the cleaners
I'm a bioengineer, but I don't work in an area relevant to drug testing. I'm curious... What is the general idea for how mishandling of the sample could create a false positive? False negative makes more sense to me. Does any evidence actually exist of false handling leading to a false positive? Sounds like some people screwed up and lied, but I'm unclear how it led to 3 false positives. What's the deal with 94? I don't want to read this whole thread, but seems like nobody is refuting that one except by saying that it's unfair that some of the details are vague?
Bioengineer wrote:
I'm a bioengineer, but I don't work in an area relevant to drug testing. I'm curious... What is the general idea for how mishandling of the sample could create a false positive? False negative makes more sense to me. Does any evidence actually exist of false handling leading to a false positive? Sounds like some people screwed up and lied, but I'm unclear how it led to 3 false positives. What's the deal with 94? I don't want to read this whole thread, but seems like nobody is refuting that one except by saying that it's unfair that some of the details are vague?
Contamination of the water blank and no calibration data to eliminate such.
The idea of a chain of custody is to maintain integrity of sample.If this does not exist the burden is not on the defence to prove such caused the outcome of the test.The test and sample fails and result binned.
If the key witness to fact has lied his evidence joins the sample in the bin and his career ends.
Retarded Ignition problem wrote:
Bioengineer wrote:
I'm a bioengineer, but I don't work in an area relevant to drug testing. I'm curious... What is the general idea for how mishandling of the sample could create a false positive? False negative makes more sense to me. Does any evidence actually exist of false handling leading to a false positive? Sounds like some people screwed up and lied, but I'm unclear how it led to 3 false positives. What's the deal with 94? I don't want to read this whole thread, but seems like nobody is refuting that one except by saying that it's unfair that some of the details are vague?
Contamination of the water blank and no calibration data to eliminate such.
The idea of a chain of custody is to maintain integrity of sample.If this does not exist the burden is not on the defence to prove such caused the outcome of the test.The test and sample fails and result binned.
If the key witness to fact has lied his evidence joins the sample in the bin and his career ends.
Who was the key witness in this case?
Prof David Cowen
Does Professor Cowen act as an expert witness in non sporting cases?
Court reporter wrote:
Does Professor Cowen act as an expert witness in non sporting cases?
If he does I bet evidence is not withheld on Heath and Safety grounds nor will the sample be opened with a hacksaw.
Michelle V wrote:
Court reporter wrote:
Does Professor Cowen act as an expert witness in non sporting cases?
If he does I bet evidence is not withheld on Heath and Safety grounds nor will the sample be opened with a hacksaw.
Why did the prosecution in the Edwards case get away with hiding evidence that would have caused the case to be dropped before it would have reached as hearing?
Court reporter wrote:
Michelle V wrote:
If he does I bet evidence is not withheld on Heath and Safety grounds nor will the sample be opened with a hacksaw.
Why did the prosecution in the Edwards case get away with hiding evidence that would have caused the case to be dropped before it would have reached as hearing?
I believe he does but not allowed to say .