ducky data wrote:
Jonny Jenks wrote:
No, went to Sport England prior to Tennis; still utterly remarkable.
More significant people involved in the cover up.
Ico said Edwards can put data protection request under prevarication act to case rectified to a wrong being put to a right .
Paul edwards wrote:
ducky data wrote:
More significant people involved in the cover up.
Ico said Edwards can put data protection request under prevarication act to case rectified to a wrong being put to a right .
I understand under 2018 prevarication act data protection which is Uk law as the evidence did not exist mr Edwards case has to be dropped .
Paul edwards wrote:
Paul edwards wrote:
Ico said Edwards can put data protection request under prevarication act to case rectified to a wrong being put to a right .
I understand under 2018 prevarication act data protection which is Uk law as the evidence did not exist mr Edwards case has to be dropped .
And there will be an investigation as to why there was a conspiracy to deny him justice.
Joe Eastwood wrote:
In 1997 it was 57 tests I remember from Dr S Davies report.
The first test in 1994 was disputed and criticised by Professor Makin and others. In those days they could get away with witholding the test data and Paul could never get any details to examine. This kind of Star Chamber secrecy is no longer possible.
For the second test Paul manged to extract the full test data and forensic examination showed it to be nonsense, being full of invalid steps and elementary procedural and technical errors. These were compounded by evasion and misinformation by the authorities over long periods for reasons unknown. A High Court defence of Paul's complaint was not attempted because, frankly, the scientific case against Paul was and is non-existent and therefore indefensible. It is not confusing - it is blatantly obvious that Paul is innocent and the injustice must be put right.
All the evidence documents proving that there is no case against Paul are available. There is and never was any valid evidence showing his guilt. What are we waiting for?
How could they get away with doing 57 goes at trying to find him guilty. If no calibration then one positive will appear esp when there is contamination of the water blank.
gus sett wrote:
Joe Eastwood wrote:
In 1997 it was 57 tests I remember from Dr S Davies report.
The first test in 1994 was disputed and criticised by Professor Makin and others. In those days they could get away with witholding the test data and Paul could never get any details to examine. This kind of Star Chamber secrecy is no longer possible.
For the second test Paul manged to extract the full test data and forensic examination showed it to be nonsense, being full of invalid steps and elementary procedural and technical errors. These were compounded by evasion and misinformation by the authorities over long periods for reasons unknown. A High Court defence of Paul's complaint was not attempted because, frankly, the scientific case against Paul was and is non-existent and therefore indefensible. It is not confusing - it is blatantly obvious that Paul is innocent and the injustice must be put right.
All the evidence documents proving that there is no case against Paul are available. There is and never was any valid evidence showing his guilt. What are we waiting for?
How could they get away with doing 57 goes at trying to find him guilty. If no calibration then one positive will appear esp when there is contamination of the water blank.
They did not have enough urine given by Edwards , so where did the extra urine come from?
Was it a doped up member of Kings College staff?
They were using staff for experiments on Testo at the time.
gus sett wrote:
Was it a doped up member of Kings College staff?
They were using staff for experiments on Testo at the time.
Anyone got an other guess as to where the extra urine came from.
gus sett wrote:
gus sett wrote:
Was it a doped up member of Kings College staff?
They were using staff for experiments on Testo at the time.
Anyone got an other guess as to where the extra urine came from.
No longer is it a matter of taking the pee , rather one of giving the pee.
Nob ed wrote:
The Davis report is re peated in the last few days.
Read it or perhaps just read parts.
You will see how unbelievable it was for Prof Cowen to think he could get away with misleading Parliament.
No wonder the Minister is investigating.
Yes, Davis report is stunning in exposing the work at Kings College.
This has been one of the craziest rabbit holes I've ever gone down since first starting this thread.
Ultimately, I find it depressing to live in a world where injustices can last through the brightest days of a man's lifetime. A place where society at large looks upon someone shamefully due to lies they've been fed by those in trusted positions of absolute power. No amount of money could ever make things right either as the time and life experiences taken away can not be replaced.
I hope this story will be told on a greater scale when this is all rectified and somehow in some way it prevents other injustices from happening in the world. Paul's will to never give up on the truth even when faced with an absolute tsunami of power against him has been remarkably inspirational.
I can only wonder how many people over the course of history have faced a similar fate, who even posthumously were never vindicated.
If ever there is someone who has reminded me I must be the hero of my own story, it is Paul Edwards.
Lean Cuisine. wrote:
This has been one of the craziest rabbit holes I've ever gone down since first starting this thread.
Ultimately, I find it depressing to live in a world where injustices can last through the brightest days of a man's lifetime. A place where society at large looks upon someone shamefully due to lies they've been fed by those in trusted positions of absolute power. No amount of money could ever make things right either as the time and life experiences taken away can not be replaced.
I hope this story will be told on a greater scale when this is all rectified and somehow in some way it prevents other injustices from happening in the world. Paul's will to never give up on the truth even when faced with an absolute tsunami of power against him has been remarkably inspirational.
I can only wonder how many people over the course of history have faced a similar fate, who even posthumously were never vindicated.
If ever there is someone who has reminded me I must be the hero of my own story, it is Paul Edwards.
You started this theme and it is still going be even though the science can never be defended and is contradicted and made invalid by Cowen’s own public statements and peer reviewed papers.
gus sett wrote:
Lean Cuisine. wrote:
This has been one of the craziest rabbit holes I've ever gone down since first starting this thread.
Ultimately, I find it depressing to live in a world where injustices can last through the brightest days of a man's lifetime. A place where society at large looks upon someone shamefully due to lies they've been fed by those in trusted positions of absolute power. No amount of money could ever make things right either as the time and life experiences taken away can not be replaced.
I hope this story will be told on a greater scale when this is all rectified and somehow in some way it prevents other injustices from happening in the world. Paul's will to never give up on the truth even when faced with an absolute tsunami of power against him has been remarkably inspirational.
I can only wonder how many people over the course of history have faced a similar fate, who even posthumously were never vindicated.
If ever there is someone who has reminded me I must be the hero of my own story, it is Paul Edwards.
You started this theme and it is still going be even though the science can never be defended and is contradicted and made invalid by Cowen’s own public statements and peer reviewed papers.
Yes!
Contrary to his own published papers.
Davis report wrote:
Paul ed wrote:
But they didn’t do calibration curves and they hid this fact for years and years.
By not having calibration curves or data, depending on the non monitored starting point you could get any result you wanted.
For instance if you could have a 190 lb person appear to weigh 210 lbs by having the setting calibrated to start at 20 lb and not zero.
That is why you have complicated procedures to make sure the mass spec is set at zero when you start. Quite simple really.
No calibrations by Cowen, contrary to his own published papers.
gus sett wrote:
Davis report wrote:
By not having calibration curves or data, depending on the non monitored starting point you could get any result you wanted.
For instance if you could have a 190 lb person appear to weigh 210 lbs by having the setting calibrated to start at 20 lb and not zero.
That is why you have complicated procedures to make sure the mass spec is set at zero when you start. Quite simple really.
No calibrations by Cowen, contrary to his own published papers.
Should he have been hauled in front of the academic board for this appalling admission.
gus sett wrote:
gus sett wrote:
No calibrations by Cowen, contrary to his own published papers.
Should he have been hauled in front of the academic board for this appalling admission.
In the real world he should never been allowed to present evidence again nor be an expert witness.
He fouled up in the Mark Hylton case in the same circumstances.
gus sett wrote:
gus sett wrote:
Should he have been hauled in front of the academic board for this appalling admission.
In the real world he should never been allowed to present evidence again nor be an expert witness.
He fouled up in the Mark Hylton case in the same circumstances.
Anyone got the detail of the Hylton case?
gus sett wrote:
gus sett wrote:
In the real world he should never been allowed to present evidence again nor be an expert witness.
He fouled up in the Mark Hylton case in the same circumstances.
Anyone got the detail of the Hylton case?
Hylton was cleared because of the mistake by Cowen.
Cleared but he never came back. Yet Cowen continued to make mistakes.
How many other cases are there from Kings College that had obvious false positives they covered up?
When will the full truth of this case get out?
Why did they deny Edwards the evidence on the basis that it would be a breach of Health and Safety regulations.
This was there official reason and in writing.