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

Can his Facebook page / video be put up please ?

Seems the old head of uk's anti doping is involved some where . Did she get sacked without any explanation , what was her name ?

But , ex thrower , what if the labs have lied and not done their work corectely and what if the evidence exists that they had to have tested someone's else's urine .

Tell me , what would you now think ?

The Russians had disappearing positives .

What about disappearing negatives .

Someone thought the means justified the end but justice does not work like that .

exthrower wrote:

Steroid cheats are the Worlds biggest liars....Pathological almost....

Something about this case seems different than the typical doper claiming innocence.

Correct , very very different .

Is there anyone out there with experience of mass spectromatory ? What would you think of any analysis that did not have calibration curves run .

I think the answer would be to bin the results .

But if the athlete in question is known to be Edwards then the lab can create its own results .

But the big question is " who's urine did they test ?".

There was not enough to do the 60 plus aqualots they did eventually had to admit they did having previously hid this from the hearings .Any why 60 ?

Until they got an outlier result and even then not supported by cal curves ??

Michelle V wrote:

What would you think of any analysis that did not have calibration curves run .

I have a bit of experience with liquid chromatography and mass spec. Could you elaborate on this, or provide a link where the lack of calibration is discussed?

My experience isn't medical, so take that for what it's worth. But generally mass spec instrumentation is stable over time. A calibration could be run several weeks, possibly months, prior to the test and the results could be valid. It really depends on how much use the column has seen in the interim.

I use a variety of liquid chromatography methods, and I rarely need to update the calibrations. Mass spec detectors are also fairly resilient, so I'd expect any drift over time to be very small. I'll add the caveat that my experience is in testing small ions, not large bio-molecules. Bio-molecules may degrade a column more quickly than what I'm used to. Would have to study up on that a bit.

Finally, as a scientist I would expect at the very least a thorough QA check before feeling confident enough to end someone's career over my results. QA checks are generally done before and after the analysis in medical labs. If this wasn't done then Edwards has a legitimate beef.

Any chance the instrument data is out there somewhere?

Would you expect evidence of when the curves were done , i.e. At least some cal curves ?

And if told non existed or could be produced or would not be produced even after going to Court and Parliament what would you think ?

And then add in that the sports hearing was told that they had the cal curves ; but indeed had not .

So which of his positive tests are you claiming that the lab screwed up on: the two in 1994 or the one from 1997. Either he's the unluckiest guy in the world, there's a conspiracy against him, or he's a career doper.

Michelle V wrote:

Would you expect evidence of when the curves were done , i.e. At least some cal curves ?

And if told non existed or could be produced or would not be produced even after going to Court and Parliament what would you think ?

And then add in that the sports hearing was told that they had the cal curves ; but indeed had not .

It would depend on how long after the positive test they were requested and how long the lab is required to hold onto their records. If the records were requested within the required holding period and the lab couldn't produce them, the results should be thrown out. If records were requested after, then the lab has no responsibility to have them and there probably isn't anything Edwards can do about it.

Although lying about having the records is definitely not a good look. Do you have a link to this information? I'd be interested to read up on the case.

I see your point about seeing original stuff . I hope someone gets them up quickly .

The curves where requested prior to the first hearing and are normally provided as part of the doc package .

They said they had them but neglected /refused to provide them . They even said it would be a breach of health and safety to provide them !

Eventually they had to admit they never had them.

We then have a faulty chain of custody with large gaps with the sample having said to have gone via DHL but the DHL waybill was never used .Somehow it eventually found its way inside the lab.

And... " who's urine did they actually test " . It had to come from somewhere and someone but who's was it ?

Derp.

The latter test .

He was not unlucky in this test .

Someone wanted him to remain banned as he looked like / was getting off the first test after the high court case .

I didn't realize they were doing MS back then. What were they looking for? Steroid byproducts, I assume. Protein MS wasn't too great back then..

Harambe wrote:

I didn't realize they were doing MS back then. What were they looking for? Steroid byproducts, I assume. Protein MS wasn't too great back then..

Edwards was busted for testosterone, correct? Again, protein analysis is not my field, but HPLC and mass spec have been around a long time. I don't know of any reason they couldn't have done LCMS for testosterone in the '90s. I believe LCMS is the instrumentation for testosterone.

There's a decent wiki page on protein mass spec:

DHL records are seen as being of the highest evidential standard . So if DHL records show it never went via them failing something rather dramatic the chain of custody dramatically fails .

Said at original hearing they did Cala data but after foi act over 9 years house of commons debate 2 times by his local MPs they said in writing no Cala data was done and wrong ions were incorrectly done

I believe this has been going 23 years shocking

You say the House of Commons .

You have to be having a joke .

You must be in fantasy land .

Question why has this gone on so long I believe original test was done by former head of lawn tennis and all people involved in case have had unbelieveble promotions from secretaries to chief ex it's mind boggling don't understand why a massive amount of money has been spent at end of the day if proper evidence was produced there would be no arguments

2 debates by Andrew hunter mp and Maria miller both on Hansard 2002 by Andrew hunter 2007 by Maria miller I've seen them so no joke