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

Just to be clear any connection to any of the parties?

Lets simplify matters and engage with reality.

In the UK if you are accused of wrong doing either in a criminal or civil court the accuser has to provide credible evidence against you. This was not the case for Paul in either 1994 or 1997. Paul has always categorically denied doping.

The offence of doping is determined solely on the scientific testing of urine in athletes. Not by interrogation on TV entertainment shows.

In anti-doping testing the procedures are not especially complex and use simple methods to ensure sample integrity.

The actual testing involves technology that was developed around 1950 and has been refined over the years to be reliable and reproducible if carried out correctly.

In Paul's case the sample was not taken properly , was not stored and transported correctly and was manipulated in various ways in 1994 and 1997. In neither test was a valid sample used.

The testing in 1994 was considered unsatisfactory by both Dr Brown and Professor Makin who objected to the proceedings. A proper analytical report was never provided to Paul or his defence team and has never been accessible. It almost certainly never existed in a credible form.

In 1997 the analytical data from the testing was accessed by Paul and examined by Dr Davis and otheres who declared it invalid as it was full of technical errors and lacked calibration data.

In simple terms in had not been carried out correctly and could not be relied on at all.

The laboratory representatives assured the disciplinary tribunal in 2000 that, although it had not presented the data, it had run calibration data for Paul's test in June 1997 and that it was satisfactory. KCL wrote a letter in 2004 with the title "Paul Edwards"repeating that calibration data was generatedt and that it was used for accurate quantification of the result.

In 2009 after a further 5 years of FOI pressure KCL admitted that it did not generate any calibration data for Paul's test.

Leaving aside all the other embarrassing errors in the analysis this lack of calibration alone invalidated the whole procedure which is why admission of its non existence was resisted to the very end of the FOI saga when the FOI officer finally demanded that it was handed over.

So to summarise there has never been any credible or valid evidence against Paul so he has no case to answer.

For information: An analytical report of a bioanalysis of urine measuring drugs such as testosterone has for decades always be included in any medicines licence application to the European Medicines agency and will often contain data on 20 or more human subjects. It will contain details of sampling, analytical methods and results including calibration. The calibration covers proof that the correct substance/s are being measured and that the measurement is accurate and reproducible. This kind of report is required by WADA nowadays to a great extent as a result of the Modahl, Edwards and Hilton cases.

If UKA or KCL could produce such a valid report on Paul i.e. a simple one subject report it surely would. Such a report proving Paul's guilt would end the fight for justice and would not cost a great deal to write up. However, it is absolutely clear that the data on sampling and testing is nonsense and if written into a formal report would clear Paul rather than convict him and would also expose the authors to scientific and judicial ridicule. This is precisely why it can not be written and why the Statute of Limitations ploy was used at great expense to avoid exposure of the details of the case in the High Court in 2013.

This subject is too serious for anyone to make frivolous suggestions about taking it to the Jeremy Kyle show. What is needed is a proper re-examination of the (non) evidence and from that the inevitable reinstatement of Paul with his good name restored.

Dear Need Action (and others)

Your above post is spot on and very much related to the real world and I endorse all that you say.

In addition it has become clear that the famous Helsinki test was another part of urban myth and was never ever actioned as a positive.

Ultraboy wrote:

Just to be clear any connection to any of the parties?

You have got me!

I am the discarded love child of Professor David Cowen and have a burning resentment about the chemistry set he failed to give me as a Xmas present.

His excuse was that he did not know how to use it.

I did not believe his excuse at the time but now I know it is true .

He monitored the wrong ion in the Hylton case and was admonished by the panel in a way that should have brought his career to a thunderous stop.

He did not run calibration data in the Edwards case and he was in charge of the analysis when there was urine substitution.

In addition, I am not at all convinced that using Brylcream is a look for this century .

Ultraboy wrote:

Just to be clear any connection to any of the parties?

Lol....She won't answer....

Need Action wrote:

The testing in 1994 was considered unsatisfactory by both Dr Brown and Professor Makin who objected to the proceedings. A proper analytical report was never provided to Paul or his defence team and has never been accessible. It almost certainly never existed in a credible form.

First off who are you and can you please let everybody know your involvement and interests in this case.

Secondly you talk about the 1994 test. There were two failures. Can you please clarify what the objections to both of these tests were.

Why can’t the team supporting Paul provide answers as to why the 1994 finding is invalid? Show us the arguments you made and what else the panelcinsideredat the time and we can then judge for ourselves if we are being asked to support a drug cheat’s campaign or that of a properly innocent party.

I would like to see the documents about that case and in particular thedefemce offered by Mr Edwards at the time. Are you seriously suggesting that Mr Edwards and his team don’t have this? Why the desperate attempts not to answer these very simple questions?

This thread is entitled “Could Paul Edwards, thrower banned for life, be telling the truth?”. The only question most will want the truth over is did he take performance enhancing drugs. It seems those supporting him are desperate for that question not to be dealt with.

It has already been pointed out that the Helsinki test was never filed as a test failure by the laboratory due to mistakes made by that lab.

The objection to the London 94 test would be that the state of the received sample was such by Cowen’s own admission and stated practice the sample should never have been analysed .

Such was the nature of hearing or non hearings and non documentation at the time as there was no hearing. The matter was raised but events overcame such by the reinstatement following the High Court case and the change of policy by IAAF not to have 4 yr bans.

I can see your disbelief that nothing substantial at all exits from 94 but in those days sports lawyers did not exist and high street lawyers were used and some of them “ceased trading” part of the way through the process.It was only when Cooper came on board that a proper presentation took place . But even then costs and pragmatism were key.

You may recall that Modahl used Mischin ; expensive libel lawyers with limited sports knowledge as that was her best possibility.

This is my best understanding having been recently refreshed.

As for the title of the thread; this relates to the life ban resulting from the 97 farce of a process.

I am not too sure why I have indulged you over the 94 test but having refreshed myself I am even more convinced that the ban is wrong.

Now will you deal with the problems of the 97 test??

Ps, from last post .

Need Action may provide comment separately from me, the discarded love child .

Oh Ultrasilly boy! The 1994 tests have been dealt with pages ago. If only Paul could have obtained all of the test documents in 1994 or subsequently they could have been shared and transparently discredited like the 1997 ones. One can assume you are being paid to troll Paul's campaign because you clearly have no leg to stand on in terms of facts or logical argument. However it does not matter who you are as you have nothing useful to say. You could be the Pope and it would not help you. I could be Donald Trump but it wouldn't matter as it is the documented facts Paul can deploy that prove his innocence.

Paul did not take performance enhancing drugs. There was no evidence that he did. Innocent unless proven guilty.

Here we go the usual pattern. I asked for the evidence, not your one sided version of history. I’m asking for the information you have about the 1994 tests to be released. I’m asking for all of those arguing for Paul who have an interest to declare it. But instead of dealing with these perfectly reasonable requests we get the usual tactics of playing the man and accusing me of being paid to troll. It seems clear that most of the folks posting on this thread in support of Paul are already part of his campaign for re-instatememt. But rather than just state that as fact I thought I’d ask you all, so you can be transparent about it. That seems only right and proper. The defensiveness over the question speaks volumes. Lots of words but no actual denial.

I’m just a former athlete who loves his sport who wants to know if we are being asked to support a drugs cheat. In order to asses this I would like to see the evidence provided for the 1994 ban and your evidence that it was erroneous. If you haven’t got it then say so and I will move along and still consider Paul a convicted drug cheat. If you have that, and not your one sided summary of it, then publish it and let us all have a look for ourselves. Surely the point here is to win over public opinion by presenting the facts and showing that your man deserves support, not to just shout your side over and again until you beat the world into submission or boredom.

There are things being said that raise massive alarms for me. For example I asked about Paul’s High Court action to be re-instated. I asked because reading the posts on here you would think this case was what got him re-instated. But that doesn’t appear to be the case at all. The only case I could find and far from being a case about his innocence was arguing that he shouldn’t be banned for 4 years because other countries only did 2. His re-instatent seems to be entirely based on the 1997 changes to IAAF rules. What has been written about these matters seems very carefully worded to give an untrue impression.

So since no case has been brought where the evidence of the failure of the 94 tests was challenged I asked for Paul’s defence at the time. Surely somebody there knows what it was? Surely asking for this information isn’t unreasonable? I’ve also said that in the absence of evidence of the tests being wrong a polygraph may be useful in persuading people in the sport that he never took performance enhancing drugs. For some reason that appears to me something you guys want to avoid, even though patently in terms of popular support it would be a coup.

I was here to be persuaded. All you had to do was show the 3 tests were all wrong. Instead you choose personal insult and attack and avoid answering simple straightfotward questions. In short you are avoiding answering awkward questions, hiding your motives and attacking those who ask reasonable questions. And yet here you are arguing that the other side has secret motives and hide evidence. The hypocrisy stinks.

Why do you persist with the Helsinki test when the lab voluntarily withdrew its evidence ; thus it can’t be for Edwards to deny something that does not exist.

You have been told many times that what we call and understand as the “evidence pack” did not exist for the 94 London test .I don’t think the Data Protection Act existed at the time or if it did it was not grasped that you could ask for data.

Figures for the ph where provided and they are beyond the level Cowen’s said he would process.Thus making the results invalid.

The issue of the above test was raised at the high court but as has been explained that cost and pragmatism and that the fact that the IAAF were going to give on stopped it becoming “heard”.

You are judging events from today’s perspective of available evidence and procedures.

It was only with Edwards use of the Data act and FOI that things changed and this is reflected in the WADA code and the IST’s

It should be clear that those posting on the Edwards side, having come to it open minded, have now been swayed by the evidence and the cover ups. I am not sure how such could now be termed biased.

Further it should be clear that they have a lot of knowledge and in some instances great experience in the scientific areas.You say that you are an ex athlete ; I suggest you think that others may clearly know more.

There has been a minimal of personal insult , perhaps some at refusing to deal with detail already provided.

In that context evidence has been provided of the failing of the lab; the Davis paper and Kings saying no cal data done but you have utterly failed to present one word of response to such.

I note that you accuse those on Edwards side of stinking hyprocracy.

I admire your adherence to your values but have you considered that you are out of your depth.

Deal with the failures of the lab and I may change my mind.

In addition

Would you like the 600 pages of hidden data that was only released after court action and after the hearings and then you could do you own paper on such ?

The paper provided by Davis may help you.

He has a PhD in the field and earns his living as a senior academic in the area of mass spectrometry and not one word has been denied of his paper.

The choice is yours.

So self defined “simple ex athlete “, the choice is indeed yours.

Alternatively you could decide,

This . Is. What. It . Looks. Like.

First off, I see you are all still refusing to declare your links to the campaign. I think this is important as people should know that you came to this forum with already established views and are merely using it as a megaphone rather than being people who have been persuaded by the debate here. On the point that you guys accuse me of coming here to troll Edwards. Can I just ask how long you’ve been on eightlane? I’ve been a member for several years, that’s some premonition of mine to join this site to troll somebody about a thread that didn’t even exist. Are you guys active posters or is it just this thread you are here for?

Secondly I don’t have to deal with the labs. You are the ones trying to persuade me and others like me to support a convicted drug cheat. It’s up to you to answer my questions in order to persuade me, you do not get to choose what information I require in order to reach my view. You’ve exhausted the legal system so let’s quit with the legalistic view, you are attempting to try this in the court of public opinion. In that world the 94 ban is critical.

Idiot have to deal with the 97 tests or the labs as I’m not trying to dissuade you from your opinion. I’m just trying to get the o the information, from as unbiased a source as possible, that may change mine. Sadly the behaviour of Mr Edwards has Alan led me to such an extent that frankly I will now struggle to believe anything you say, purely because I can’t tell if you might be deliberately omitting something pertinent.

The hypocrisy I’m calling out is that you are calling for openness whilst concealing your motives and the information that you have at your disposal. You are behaving like there is something to hide as I can’t see a good reason to do that.

I came to the matters of the Edwards case without bias but became convinced that there is much materially wrong with the conviction being minded of the evidence that was hidden from the hearing points to many breaches of fundemental science.So my motives rather than being covert are very overt ie justice.

Your perspective on receiving evidence is rather like a jury saying to both the prosecution or defence that they do not suggest the evidence you need.

You can ask for more and better detail but as you have not a clue about the science such is unlikely, but you unlike the juror could take advise.

I can see how in your general sense of the 94 test( I assume you take the point about the Helsinki episode )but then you fail to respond to Cowen’s admission that the Ph would invalidate the result.

I have never been on Eight Lane , is that the one with the very very limited Fangio and Buggut on. Such made me adopt Lane 9.

Are you capable of dealing the 97 test ie split the intellectual elephant in bits , and deal with its fairness on the merits of the new evidence or will you continue your bias caused by your limited understanding of the 94 test.

I have provided all the evidence at my disposal but I believe more exists and such can substantiate each and all the points made. A problem with this forum is that it seems not possible ,certainly from the UK , to post original and extensive original documents.

For instance I am aware of the letter from KCL saying that Edwards could not have the hidden data because it would be unhealthy for him to have such.

Would you accuse me of hypocracy because one day more and better detail , ie the original letter ( somehow)appeared .

It is great that at your age you are embarking on this unusual intellectual journey . I wish you well.

Again with the getting personal rather than dealing with the questions. What is it with you and attacking the man rather than dealing with the points.

I guess you expect letsrun readers to believe that a bunch of folks who support a Welsh Shot putter from the 1990s just all turned up on a distance running forum based in the USA by accident. It’s clear this is a co-ordinated effort pretending to be a debate between independent parties.

It’s dishonest on your part and if Edwards is indeed an innocent man he deserves better than to be represented by a bunch of bullies who are trying to deceive people about the debate.

Ultraboy wrote:

Again with the getting personal rather than dealing with the questions. What is it with you and attacking the man rather than dealing with the points.

I guess you expect letsrun readers to believe that a bunch of folks who support a Welsh Shot putter from the 1990s just all turned up on a distance running forum based in the USA by accident. It’s clear this is a co-ordinated effort pretending to be a debate between independent parties.

It’s dishonest on your part and if Edwards is indeed an innocent man he deserves better than to be represented by a bunch of bullies who are trying to deceive people about the debate.

Once again, every one of your points dealt with .

You fail to say which have not been dealt with.

Hardcore scientific evidence totally ignored .

No deception only full honesty and a providing if a depth of evidence that is unprecedented.

You say you are a simple ex athlete , note, you said it

You are conspicuously out of your depth.

A person in such a position normally asks for clarity or gets help or reads up.Though I do accept that the latter is a tad difficult as it is at post grad level.

“Bullies , dishonest and deceptive .”

Not bad to someone just asking for you to look at the evidence.

Ah , but then you choose which evidence to look at.

Note I say , look at, and not agree .

By the way, Letsrun gave it the first airing and then it was picked up by a person from the States who started the posts.Or is even this something you refuse to accept as it does not meet your perspective ?

How many of you know each other and are involved in the active campaign to re-instate Paul? Are any of the posters part of Paul’s Legal Team or have been used as witnesses or experts by Paul?

Simple questions. They go to whether we are getting the information from a one sided perspective. I think it’s important to be honest about such things.

It is because it seems evident that the information is being provided by one side of an argument. You don’t try cases based on one side of the debate.

So let’s just agree that Paul is a convicted drug cheat who has exhausted all legal avenues of appeal. If you aren’t prepared to be open about what it is you are doing then don’t expect much support.

Michelle V wrote:

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 .

It would be interesting to just lay out the truth about the "false positives" that Lagat and other Kenyans hid behind. The positives weren't false and the politics behind letting Lagat and others off needs to be explored.