Could Paul Edwards, thrower banned for life, be telling the truth?

I can't support Mr Edwards, based on just one side of the story, a lot of which was already considered when he received his ban.

I also note that he is constantly complaining about the procedure and how it is incorrect, but I can't find a denial of taking the drugs, just attempts to prove technicalities.

If he ends up finding some actual evidence, great for him, but at the moment I don't believe he didn't take performance enhancing drugs.

The Other Ultra Boy wrote:

I can't support Mr Edwards, based on just one side of the story, a lot of which was already considered when he received his ban.

I also note that he is constantly complaining about the procedure and how it is incorrect, but I can't find a denial of taking the drugs, just attempts to prove technicalities.

If he ends up finding some actual evidence, great for him, but at the moment I don't believe he didn't take performance enhancing drugs.

There has been constant denials and evidence to clear has been found !

The technicalities are that evidence ,that was not allowed to be presented at any of the hearings and even not to Parliament ,show , amongst many things , that they where not monitoring the correct ion due to contamination in the water blank .

You may feel that he has taken drugs but that feeling should not overcome the reality of gross fatal errors in this particular test and the coming together of several tax paid organisations to cover such up .

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

Michelle V wrote:

Raise an editorial comment on main page , contact wada or the AiU.

After all they have access to an inside story of the working of the labs and how smokesreens work .

It must illustrate many of the problems with the workings of doping cases .

I can't see how you can't go to the court for arbitration in sport (CAS), everyone goes there and usually succeed.

This entire case is eerily similar to the guy fired by MI6, who decided to write a book about it, so they locked him up. He wasn't allowed to bring a Labour dispute and hear the charges.

CAS has said they have no power to reopen under any circumstances. What sort of justice system is that

. Parliament was told he should go to CAS but CAS said " can't ".

All these technicalities are just that, technicalities. You're essentially implying that because of these technicalities he shouldn't have been banned. Yes it appears you are correct. But that doesn't mean he wasn't a drugs cheat, and the avoidance earlier on when questioned about the first test looks bad and LRC don't want to help a drugs cheat get off for technicalities.

So lets assume he's actually not a drugs cheat. You are suggesting wide spread corruption. I think we all know that it exists in the sport and goes right to the top, but stop messing about and cut to the chase.

Who is corrupt, what did they do, why did they do it?

Why aren't you just telling us what you really think in plain terms instead of trying to garner support through technicalities.

Michelle V wrote:

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

I can't see how you can't go to the court for arbitration in sport (CAS), everyone goes there and usually succeed.

This entire case is eerily similar to the guy fired by MI6, who decided to write a book about it, so they locked him up. He wasn't allowed to bring a Labour dispute and hear the charges.

CAS has said they have no power to reopen under any circumstances. What sort of justice system is that

. Parliament was told he should go to CAS but CAS said " can't ".

Are you sure?

My view, and it is what has infuriated me for a long time, is how samples from back then we're not stored. I just can't believe the lack of foresight by t&f/iaaf. The problem would not exist with transparency, there are so many athletes from the 80s & 90s that were so utterly dirty and I would delight in them being stripped of their medals/records.

Michelle V

There has been constant denials and evidence to clear has been found.

Can't find him saying "I did not take performance enhancing drugs", just I should not have been banned because of technicalities, as I say many of which had been presented previously. As for involving Parliament, no way. What are they going to do, our drug testing has to be free of political interference, we are not Russia.

His case is that he was wrongly convicted because procedure was not followed in some way, not I was wrongly convicted because I did not take drugs but faulty tests were made to look like I did. That is what he has presented, with only one side of the story. When someone presents their case with that narrative I am disinclined to believe they were innocent.

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

Michelle V wrote:

CAS has said they have no power to reopen under any circumstances. What sort of justice system is that

. Parliament was told he should go to CAS but CAS said " can't ".

Are you sure?

My view, and it is what has infuriated me for a long time, is how samples from back then we're not stored. I just can't believe the lack of foresight by t&f/iaaf. The problem would not exist with transparency, there are so many athletes from the 80s & 90s that were so utterly dirty and I would delight in them being stripped of their medals/records.

When you say " are you sure ?" do you mean with ref to CAS ?

There is a link within all this post that his MP , Miller ,wrote to CAS and was told such and that response was related to Parliament .

Mud Runner wrote:

All these technicalities are just that, technicalities. You're essentially implying that because of these technicalities he shouldn't have been banned. Yes it appears you are correct. But that doesn't mean he wasn't a drugs cheat, and the avoidance earlier on when questioned about the first test looks bad and LRC don't want to help a drugs cheat get off for technicalities.

So lets assume he's actually not a drugs cheat. You are suggesting wide spread corruption. I think we all know that it exists in the sport and goes right to the top, but stop messing about and cut to the chase.

Who is corrupt, what did they do, why did they do it?

Why aren't you just telling us what you really think in plain terms instead of trying to garner support through technicalities.

The technicalities are basic methods for any validity for findings . They are nor peripheral matters but totally central to a prosecution case .

There are large questions of confidence in the methods used by doping control and these need to be addressed .

I see your point about the previous positive but that was about to be overruled ; that's why he was and knew he was having the test in question.But getting of the previous was too much for the person in control and that persons office used family members to conduct the test .

I have been fighting this 23 years I have not taken drugs why would I bother

This is about the scientist at Kcl laboratory .Admiting he did not follow standard laboratory procedures no calibration data how’s that technicality .

Paul edwards wrote:

This is about the scientist at Kcl laboratory .Admiting he did not follow standard laboratory procedures no calibration data how’s that technicality .

I am surprised people talk about technicalities when there was substuted urine and hacksaws .

Who was paying KIngs College to do all the testing , I bet it was a big expensive contract for Kings to have .

It would not have created undue pressure on a test they knew the identity of .

Michelle V wrote:

Paul edwards wrote:

This is about the scientist at Kcl laboratory .Admiting he did not follow standard laboratory procedures no calibration data how’s that technicality .

I am surprised people talk about technicalities when there was substuted urine and hacksaws .

Who was paying KIngs College to do all the testing , I bet it was a big expensive contract for Kings to have .

It would not have created undue pressure on a test they knew the identity of .

How did they know who's sample it was ?

The sample was taken by the tester to the laboratory . He was a family member of the antidoping office who sent him to test Edwards .He said he forgot what he did with the sample !!!

No idea if that is the answer .

Did this drug tester cause the sample bottle to have to be hacksawed open as he could not remember what he did with it ?

We heard about this case of hacksawing and thought if ever we needed to fabricate samples we would do it in a much more clever technique . We would have got away with it but then our doping boss dropped us in it by telling all what we did in Sochi .

No hacksawing for us .

Okay 1994 1st test 14 aug says cocktail of drugs machine number on test is different number when it comes off machine .fair enough want to send expert to exam paperwork and b test sorry already done b test done .my lawyer not present as he was not told .2nd test 16 aug one substance Professor Cowan doubles amount of urine from A test to BTest Quotes I throw samples away over 7.5 outside range of guidelines 5.0 to 7.0 Professor Makin and professor Taylor say results do not make sense and procedures significantly broken and London test 16 August is not medically of the quality to be accurate .3 years later still banned 1997 test which I was in middle of court case over 4 year 2 year ban as gb was only country to banned 4 years at time I was told by Charles wood house farriers I would tested in next two days .there is no credible evidence full stop and is back up by 7 professors over the years and my 2 mps

So you knew you where to be tested and indeed UKS knew you were to be tested and you were about to be reinstated .

Wow that must have infuriated them , could that he why they sent a family member of the drug control office to take the sample . The very chap who could not remember what he did with the sample .

And for the first " positive " they made the most basic mistake , amongst others , of doing the b test without your permission and thus without you our your experts being there .Thus invalidating the whole case .

What you say is true. In fact everything that Paul has stated is true and everyone who is not trying to muddy the water can see there has been an atrocious injustice that still continues.

There must be enough evidence for Letsrun to start giving some action on this as they hold a very high moral ground for justice in matters of doping .