The facts and overwhelming evidence speak for itself .
The facts and overwhelming evidence speak for itself .
Fairness and justice wrote:
The facts and overwhelming evidence speak for itself .
Themselves not itself
His masseuse who bought it for penile enhancement, put it in his soup after a night of drinking beer and shots and having sex with his girlfriend. Then he mixed a protein drink that must have contained testosterone and ate a steak that must have raised his test levels also. This poor Man just has terrible luck.
truthseakr wrote:
His masseuse who bought it for penile enhancement, put it in his soup after a night of drinking beer and shots and having sex with his girlfriend. Then he mixed a protein drink that must have contained testosterone and ate a steak that must have raised his test levels also. This poor Man just has terrible luck.
This is a brain dead troll to be ignored by all.
Look, you’ve said your piece, defending Paul, but endlessly repeating it is just ridiculous.
There is clear bias on display and obviously more to it than the evidence you are offering.
I looked into the calibration thing, and found press reports which highlight the college saying that it was not a requirement to keep the calibration data, and it appears that this is indeed something that the protocols at the time said, yet the lack of the data is being used to claim that the machine was not calibrated. That is deliberately skewing what happened to suit a narrative.
Since that has been portrayed in a dishonest fashion by you I really can’t be bothered taking your side based one one side of the story. The other side is that people who saw the evidence convicted Paul twice and banned him for life, and despite a police investigation these were not deemed unsafe convictions.
I have no doubt that failure to support a twice convicted drug cheat who misrepresents the facts will be portrayed as somehow wrong, but since I can’t trust him to be honest I won’t take his word on this.
One Sided Narrative wrote:
Look, you’ve said your piece, defending Paul, but endlessly repeating it is just ridiculous.
There is clear bias on display and obviously more to it than the evidence you are offering.
I looked into the calibration thing, and found press reports which highlight the college saying that it was not a requirement to keep the calibration data, and it appears that this is indeed something that the protocols at the time said, yet the lack of the data is being used to claim that the machine was not calibrated. That is deliberately skewing what happened to suit a narrative.
Since that has been portrayed in a dishonest fashion by you I really can’t be bothered taking your side based one one side of the story. The other side is that people who saw the evidence convicted Paul twice and banned him for life, and despite a police investigation these were not deemed unsafe convictions.
I have no doubt that failure to support a twice convicted drug cheat who misrepresents the facts will be portrayed as somehow wrong, but since I can’t trust him to be honest I won’t take his word on this.
A thoughtful post.
Ref Cal Curves .
There may or may not be a requirement to keep the data but the College said that they had them but for years and years refused to provide them stating all sorts of reasons under the FOI Act and DPA. They really did try and apply every trick inc saying to do so would be a breach of health and safety law.
From other cases it was clear that it was normal practice to provide this data.
Eventually the FOI court said they had to be produced , whereupon they said they did not have them.
If you look to the paper by Davis you will note that cal data failures were apparent in the mysterious 50 plus tests they had to do until they found a positive.
Carry over from the water blanks and standards being the more likely reason.All this is illustrative that there was failure in calibration.Come what May forensic cases would never start without Cal Data.
You say that the people who heard the case heard the evidence. They did not!
600 pages were withheld and such became the basis of the paper by Davis.
Further; the chair was assured that all Cal data was readily available if requested and that it would have been better if it had appeared at the hearing.Cowen assured the chair that full contemporaneous data existed.
The Police cane to a halt when they were told that the DHL paper copy had gone missing and were assured by DHL that this was the case. Police resources could not be justified any further but the case was kept live.
Thus nothing has been misrepresented, indeed the full story and the report from the Police would lead to an argument that it has been under stated.
Ps. Read the Davis paper.
The Lab admitted to the FOI commissioner that they did not after all run calibration. That was after 9 years of claiming they did. This is all documented and can be searched online. It wasn't a case of not keeping the data - they never generated it. Facts are facts and incorrect answers given to the press for years remain incorrect.
See how one of you says they told the FOI court they didn't have the data (that they were not required to keep under the testing protocols) the other says they said they didn't do the calibration. No evidence is presented that they said they did not calibrate, hence my name on this thread. We've heard your side of the story, all you do is continually repeat yourselves.
One Sided Narrative wrote:
See how one of you says they told the FOI court they didn't have the data (that they were not required to keep under the testing protocols) the other says they said they didn't do the calibration. No evidence is presented that they said they did not calibrate, hence my name on this thread. We've heard your side of the story, all you do is continually repeat yourselves.
Originally they said that they had the cal data and they kept saying this but refused to provide it .
According to ISO 17025 the Cal Data was agreed to be provided .There may not have been a stated requirement that after 10 years it need to be provided.The makers of the machine say that all such data would have been held by the machines come what may. A bit like your phone still holding data after you have deleted history.
The contemporaneous cal data had to be provided and kept with the test result.
The problem in understanding this is to grasp that they will have done calibrations at some point over the weeks or months prior to the test.But such are not contemporaneous.If you read the Parliamentary reports of the MP , Hunter, you will not the tactics to muddy the waters of the Cal Data and ditto the FOI courts.
It is very hard to explain this on this forum.
Every person who had looked at the detail, including the people who design and make the machines have concluded that no contemporaneous cal data was created. Further they had every opportunity to provide what was a normal provision in doping cases at the time.
Part of your logic is to prove they did not do them; proving a negative is always rather tricky as you will be aware.
That they were not provided when said to be available and then after court action they should say “ oh dear me all the old data has just been destroyed “ should be rather indicative that they were not done or done but irregular . My guess is the latter, esp as it took 50 tests to find a positive.
It’s similar to Sky’s defense of not having medical data that is required because the doctor forgot to upload all the records to their Dropbox account and then his laptop got stolen so therefore nobody knows the truth. Part of the problem with Paul’s case is that the general public doesn’t understand the science behind it all so they also can’t understand how bad it looks to someone who works in a lab doing this testing. Is Paul guilty? Honestly, who knows, but he vehemently denies it AND the handling of the sample is a disaster from the minute DHL got it. Nobody knows who was handling it and once it got to the lab the methods used to test it were extremely irregular; certainly not to the standards any of us would be comfortable with when our career and repuatatiom is on the line. People see Paul and think “here’s a big dumb white thrower from the 80’s, of course he was on something.” Not many people are willing or able to read through the 100s of pages associated with this case because it’s technical and extremely confusing to all but a few professionals who work in such a lab. The fact the lab was deliberately lying to mislead the court has to make you wonder why they would do that. Why does anyone lie for years on end under what should be a severe penalty if caught? Because the truth coming out would destroy them. That’s it. That’s ultimately what’s going on here: an old poor has-been got screwed and several people in power with a lot to lose (their job and reputation) are willing to keep stepping on Paul to save their own back.
Michelle V wrote:
One Sided Narrative wrote:
See how one of you says they told the FOI court they didn't have the data (that they were not required to keep under the testing protocols) the other says they said they didn't do the calibration. No evidence is presented that they said they did not calibrate, hence my name on this thread. We've heard your side of the story, all you do is continually repeat yourselves.
Originally they said that they had the cal data and they kept saying this but refused to provide it .
According to ISO 17025 the Cal Data was agreed to be provided .There may not have been a stated requirement that after 10 years it need to be provided.The makers of the machine say that all such data would have been held by the machines come what may. A bit like your phone still holding data after you have deleted history.
The contemporaneous cal data had to be provided and kept with the test result.
The problem in understanding this is to grasp that they will have done calibrations at some point over the weeks or months prior to the test.But such are not contemporaneous.If you read the Parliamentary reports of the MP , Hunter, you will not the tactics to muddy the waters of the Cal Data and ditto the FOI courts.
It is very hard to explain this on this forum.
Every person who had looked at the detail, including the people who design and make the machines have concluded that no contemporaneous cal data was created. Further they had every opportunity to provide what was a normal provision in doping cases at the time.
Part of your logic is to prove they did not do them; proving a negative is always rather tricky as you will be aware.
That they were not provided when said to be available and then after court action they should say “ oh dear me all the old data has just been destroyed “ should be rather indicative that they were not done or done but irregular . My guess is the latter, esp as it took 50 tests to find a positive.
The main headline story on the BBC news as I write is that over 900 cases were dropped because of the failure of police to provide evidence to the defense.
In the Edwards case 600 pages were not disclosed to the hearings. See Davis paper on the missing pages and the failing of the test (inc substituted urine )that was presented earlier on this forum.
This is in addition to the cal data ,whether contemporaneous or not ,which is still missing.
Yet nothing happened to end Edwards ban, except huge promotions for those involved.
Basically this test never took place!
Rubbish wrote:
Basically this test never took place!
Where on earth does this comment come from.Clearly it took place but not in a manner that would meet any published methods or in a way the the scientific community would accept.
Thus leaves asside that the hearings were mislead and 600 pages of evidence was persistently withheld from Edwards using every method possible inc saying he could not have it as the info would be injurious to his health.
Give it up Lance...Did your parents never teach you about honesty?
In my hearing I had 6 to 8 pages presented so-called evidence the 600 Additional pages was kept from me I didn’t even know about it .10 years after my hearing after freedom information and data protection access requests the commissioner said calibration data did not exist so this was totally invalidate the test.In Great Britain recently several hundred cases the same as happened prosecution with held evidence from Defense. I’ve never had a proper hearing where the evidence was disclosed. It’s very hard to defend yourself if you don’t have the evidence.
Paul ed wrote:
In my hearing I had 6 to 8 pages presented so-called evidence the 600 Additional pages was kept from me I didn’t even know about it .10 years after my hearing after freedom information and data protection access requests the commissioner said calibration data did not exist so this was totally invalidate the test.In Great Britain recently several hundred cases the same as happened prosecution with held evidence from Defense. I’ve never had a proper hearing where the evidence was disclosed. It’s very hard to defend yourself if you don’t have the evidence.
This note is to remind that whether or not they made mistakes the FACT that 600 pages of material evidence was withheld is enough for the conviction to be unsafe.
Headlines in the UK.
All rape cases to be reviewed over evidence disclosure.
Yet, 600 pages of evidence hidden from Edwards!
All cases if the evidence is withheld from the defence when they know that They’ve withheld it then has to be dropped .
You do know this wasn't a court case don't you?
One Sided Narrative wrote:
You do know this wasn't a court case don't you?
Doping cases follow the procedures of criminal cases in most matters.
Disclosure / discovery is normal in doping cases.
I think it is a fair point to make by way of comparison or analogy.