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

truthseakr wrote:

Paul....You know you cheated....

Somehow in your brain you have rationalized it......But it's still cheating....And you got what you deserved...

I have already admonished you for your lack and laziness of brainpower.

The tests have to be done properly, without bias and hiding evidence.

Why have you not dealt with these problems ?

Hacksawing

No calibration data

Urine substitution

Hidden data

Missing chain of custody

Refusal to provide evidence

Etc etc

I met someone like you on a Jury at Crown Court. This person just spouted misguided opinion based on nothing at all after hearing detailed evidence for two whole weeks. Eventually I managed to get through to this person by encouraging them to look at the points one at a time and thinking based on the evidence presented. Thankfully we could give a unanimous verdict once the bigot actually looked at the facts but it was hard work. I fear you may need professional guidance. Please look into it for your own sake.

Yeah...Maybe someone put steroids in your soup.....

truthseakr wrote:

Yeah...Maybe someone put steroids in your soup.....

You really are a credit to the development of humanity are you not.

Why on earth do you not get coaching in the use of your limited intellect.

The only evidence of cheating is that by the various authorities.

Hacksawing sample bottle.

No calibration data

No chain of custody

Bottles that can be opened without detection using hot water.

Urine mysteriously appeared from someone other than Edwards

Hiding evidence which would have cleared Edwards

Stew in that soup.

My soup? Perhaps your mind is soup if you think I have been discussing myself rather than Paul! You are now just embarrassing yourself and stinking out the platform.

Need Action wrote:

My soup? Perhaps your mind is soup if you think I have been discussing myself rather than Paul! You are now just embarrassing yourself and stinking out the platform.

Can you be advised that unless you click the quote post the assumption is that you are replying to the last post.

I would assume from the tone of your post that you are actually commenting on the retard , truthseakr , and not me.

I agree truthseakr has all the smell of a badly maintained bumpart.(shithole according to Trump)

All of the Edwards family defending this drug cheat.....

truthseakr wrote:

All of the Edwards family defending this drug cheat.....

Deal with the failures of the test , that is what a person with a brain would do.

To the general reader.

How would you feel if you were done for speeding but the machine was calibrated so have an actual zero speed saying 10 mph so that a true speed of 30 was recorded at 40?

Then, despite persistent requests for the data, all parties involved with the prosecution withheld this.

Then after 10 years and having to use the courts the truth came out only to be told that this new evidence was not new evidence and to make matters worse the expert who worked it out had all correspondence rejected.

And then the person who rejected correspondence was made a Baroness.

Every person ever busted for PED's had denied it and invented cockamamie stories.....

Why don't you try some honesty and ethics and maybe people will respect you.....

truthseakr wrote:

Every person ever busted for PED's had denied it and invented cockamamie stories.....

Why don't you try some honesty and ethics and maybe people will respect you.....

You are wrong on the first part; many do admit use.

So do a bit of brain work before you comment.

The evidence of poor honesty and ethics lies against the authorities and has been set out in this forum.

It is you who is dishonest and unethical and remarkably lazy and incompetent.

Hacksawing

No calibration

No chain of custody

Substituted urine

Etc etc

All evidenced and set out .

If this is truly a setup it would be much more convincing if you someone could provide evidence to some sort of motive. Why Edwards? Who had it out for him? Certainly this wasn't purely by chance. Who had it out for him? If that can't be figured out or disclosed then it's tough to believe without a doubt Edwards is innocent. There must be a motive in a setup like this, otherwise why would anyone take the risk of doing sloppy work?

Teacher to the retarded wrote:

truthseakr wrote:

Every person ever busted for PED's had denied it and invented cockamamie stories.....

Why don't you try some honesty and ethics and maybe people will respect you.....

You are wrong on the first part; many do admit use.

So do a bit of brain work before you comment.

The evidence of poor honesty and ethics lies against the authorities and has been set out in this forum.

It is you who is dishonest and unethical and remarkably lazy and incompetent.

Hacksawing

No calibration

No chain of custody

Substituted urine

Etc etc

All evidenced and set out .

The point about what has caused the “ set up” is very significant and I can fully understand why it is being asked.

It has an implicit assumption that it is a set up but needless to say it is not so clear.

Let’s split the elephant up.

Post test result has been a clear and persistent attempts to hide the evidence.Why ? A significant part is to protect the system and having begun to do so the process caused even more protection of the system ie they kept digging an even bigger hole.

You could then ask how much of the actions to hide the evidence were also motivated by it being the Edwards case and there was much antithapy to him.

Now we come to the actual test itself.

Edwards was about to be reinstated and the test was a very much pre organised test in the context of a High Court case for re instatement.

All new about this.

The sample somehow got to the lab but not via the route it was said to have gone ie the DHL waybill was never used. Thus by hand from the drug tester might have been the case.The tester could not remember and they refused to provide his travel log that would have helped in this regard.

Why did the lab do 50 plus analysis on the sample?

Was this in anyway connected to it being a known reinstatement test and the sample going missing?

Perhaps the most telling point is that UKA and the Lab have never made a meaningful attempt to justify their actions or to defend the sampling and testing. Avoidance, denial and silence instead. Understandable I suppose because every lawyer would advise " if you can't answer incriminating questions say no comment". They even spent a massive sum of money to have the case time barred rather than face the unanswerable questions.

In contrast Paul can and has answered all questions openly.

If we could look inside his head I think his argument is this.....

Yes, I took steroids but everyone else did too and besides, some of the testing protocols were sloppy so I should be exonerated....

Dude, you cheated and recieved your 'just rewards'.

truthseakr wrote:

I'll be retarded too if you teach me wrote:

If this is truly a setup it would be much more convincing if you someone could provide evidence to some sort of motive. Why Edwards? Who had it out for him? Certainly this wasn't purely by chance. Who had it out for him? If that can't be figured out or disclosed then it's tough to believe without a doubt Edwards is innocent. There must be a motive in a setup like this, otherwise why would anyone take the risk of doing sloppy work?

If we could look inside his head I think his argument is this.....

Yes, I took steroids but everyone else did too and besides, some of the testing protocols were sloppy so I should be exonerated....

Dude, you cheated and recieved your 'just rewards'.

How sloppy is sloppy.

If the calibration was not set at zero the results are totally useless ; not sloppy.

If urine was substituted the results are not sloppy they are .......

If the ph was out of the range for the testing according to the person in charge of the tests but they carried on this is not sloppy .

There is no way whatsoever that this alleged test result would have be declared positive in the current WADA regime .

I think it is becoming clear that "truthseakr" is anything but and it is pointless trying to explain matters when he or she just wishes to blacken Paul's name regardless of the facts. They just won't accept the clear evidence that the sample was worthless on scientific and chain of custody grounds or that lack of calibration meant that not only was the measurement amount invalid but there was no confirmation that the correct substances were being measured. Accordingly I will ignore truthseakr from now on as he/she is saying nothing useful or worth responding to. Of course there is no credible response to Paul's fight against his ban or we would have heard it by now from some quarter or another.

Need Action wrote:

I think it is becoming clear that "truthseakr" is anything but and it is pointless trying to explain matters when he or she just wishes to blacken Paul's name regardless of the facts. They just won't accept the clear evidence that the sample was worthless on scientific and chain of custody grounds or that lack of calibration meant that not only was the measurement amount invalid but there was no confirmation that the correct substances were being measured. Accordingly I will ignore truthseakr from now on as he/she is saying nothing useful or worth responding to. Of course there is no credible response to Paul's fight against his ban or we would have heard it by now from some quarter or another.

I agree that truthseakr should be ignored as he is anything other his name.

Need Action wrote:

I think it is becoming clear that "truthseakr" is anything but and it is pointless trying to explain matters when he or she just wishes to blacken Paul's name regardless of the facts. They just won't accept the clear evidence that the sample was worthless on scientific and chain of custody grounds or that lack of calibration meant that not only was the measurement amount invalid but there was no confirmation that the correct substances were being measured. Accordingly I will ignore truthseakr from now on as he/she is saying nothing useful or worth responding to. Of course there is no credible response to Paul's fight against his ban or we would have heard it by now from some quarter or another.

Ma'am...Tell your son to stop taking steroids and follow the rules.....