Now we see your real colours. Pretend to be all about truth and justice but quite happy to misrepresent things for your cause. “Keen on prison violence”. I didn’t say anything of the sort. I ambivalent to violence against some offenders who seem to have gotten off lightly. Should those who do it get charges- yes, but don’t expect me to get upset by it.
I also see you are mad keen on the process being followed. However you also seem keen to ignore that there is an appeals process and a legal process for challenging this decision and they have been exhausted. You are no longer in he realms of arguing process. You are in the realms of public opinion. In order to win in that realm you need people to have sympathy for your guy.
If you want to gain public support for your campaign then going on Jeremy Kyle would be a really public way to do so. I don’t understand why there is any notion that this would not be a great idea, other than there is a bloody good chance Mr Edwards would be shown to be a drug cheat. I think you know that if the 1994 tests are shown to be correct then support for your campaign would not be there.
It seems to me that your side of this argument are absolutely desperate to ignore the first ban. If he’s innocent of that offence then he’d have my support and I suspect the support of many other people. Mr Edwards almost admitted as much previously in interview. He knows people will point to the 1994 ban, but nothing is being done to deal with that other than completely ignoring it. That’s fine in court, but this isn’t court and you’ve exhausted the courts.
So rather than trying to misrepresent what I’ve said why don’t you deal with that first ban.
What you have said about it doesn’t quite ring true. So I am after clarification. Did Mr Edwards contestboth tests in 1994? Were they conducted at separate facilities? What was he shown to have taken? What was Mr Edwards defence at the time?
The glossing over of things seems deliberate. I asked about the details of the 94 tests the charges, decision and what Mr Edwards defence was at the time. You said “The details of the 94 tests and the rationale and validity got lost on the steps of the high court when Edwards got reinstated.” As far as I can make out that’s not quite in the spirit of of openness that you espouse. The only case Mr Edwards seems to have taken to High Court in the 94 case was one arguing that he shouldn’t be banned for 4 years as some countries only banned for 2. He lost by the way.
Now rather than more obsfucation can one of you please answer the questions.
What was Mr Edwards defence to the 94 charges?
Were there 2 separate failed tests conducted by separate institutions?
What evidence does Mr Edwards have that the tests were not correct?
And for that matter:
Why was Mr Edwards challenging a point of law rather than proclaiming his innocence in his 94 action?