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

Could this be one of the most remarkable threads.

I don’t think we have heard half of the story yet and something will come out that will implicate people we can’t imagine.

I gather that all attempts will be made to get the letter of Dec O9 available. However I am surprised that given every bit of evidence that has already forward you should think that the Dec 09 letter should be made up.

Anything that says there is no calibration data should be seen as saying they did no do calibration data.

That is what Cameron said three times.

As for dates , the A test on ATN O10830 was 21/06/97

The letter of Dec 09 from KCL says that the B test was reported on 19/14/97. There is then a statement that there is file note saying that no calibration data done for the B test. The date of that note was 14/09/97.

It seems reasonable to assume the B test was that date.

Do you really think that this is being made up??

You have made a school boy error in making a statement/argument based on your guess that the dates in the Dec 10 letter from KCL referred to Edwards submitted test results. Better luck next time.

As for being cal data being not required ,you really are out of your depth regarding the correct science.

The panel was assured by Cowen that he had done the calibration data having been asked that precise question by Michael Beloff .You suggest that because Beloff did not ask to see the data should be seen as evidence that the data was not required is a naive and somewhat stupid suggestion.You have no concept of the way expert evidence is presented and accepted.

However Cowen got his cumupance when he was challenged by an other expert in the Hylton case and had to admit his mistake in monitoring the wrong ion and the case stopped at very point.

When I put FO I request For the calibration data as requested by several scientific expert. It took several years to go through the process before the foi commissioner forced KCl to give me the said data then very conveniently they said they didn’t have it but had some other dates which the judge told me to put put FO I request in for and they said they destroyed it . You would never destroy evidence an active case . Later when I receive the whole Foi file . I found out when the FO i Commissioner said I have to receive this information because other athletes routinely receive it and I have been banned for life with no data.What is the motive for that.

Why is this case gone on for so long and what is the bigger picture KCl UK anti-doping . Why are these organisations covering up at the very least they must be discredited deceitful and incompetent . There has to be something much more significant they don’t want us to find out .?

Paul ed wrote:

Why is this case gone on for so long and what is the bigger picture KCl UK anti-doping . Why are these organisations covering up at the very least they must be discredited deceitful and incompetent . There has to be something much more significant they don’t want us to find out .?

There has to be something behind all this and more and more questions tumble out.

Why were they doing more work on the A sample three months after it was declared positive.

They were doing this many times within that three months and some times doing calibration data.

Why was not the results of the extra work not provided to the defence ?

Did it prove Edwards’s innocence?

Did they know that the initial analysis of the A sample was faulty and such may have been discovered. ie faulty calibration and monitoring the wrong ion (again)?

Were they trying to “find” an other positive and just kept going (50 plus goes)?

Were did the urine come from as according to Cowen’s declared protocol he did not have enough urine to do this work .

Has any of this do do with ;

1. That there were material problems with the B sample to the extent it had to be hacksawed open.

2.That Edwards expert in plastics showed that bottles could easily be opened in hot water.

3. The fractured and missing chain of custody with formal reports that it was already leaked empty before it got to the lab.

This sorry episode stinks. All parties know this but the cover up continued.

What we have seen in Sochi has large elements in the Edwards case.

And then of course; what other labs in the world may well have had the practices we see in Edwards case?

Yet more about hidden evidence.

The burden of proof at the time was the criminal one of beyond reasonable doubt.

How on earth can you get away with hiding evidence with that burden of proof ?

If a prosecuting body had deliberately hid evendence would they be subject to a criminal charge of any nature?

In the Uk there is a lot of fuss about the goody goody Oxfam and their ill doing having been covered up years ago.

Resignations over the cover ups etc.

Ring any bells?

No. It’s utterly irrelevant.

Ultraboy wrote:

No. It’s utterly irrelevant.

Historical cover ups and resignations.

What part of analogy fails to chime?

It would seem that it was not just for Edwards’ samples that had a failure to do the calibration data work at KCL.

This is clearly not the work of a competent scientist as all the published papers of the time inc those the Prof Cowen ( from KCL)demonstrated the importance and normal practice to do such calibrations.

Would they have to revisit all test positives and bans resultant from Cowen’s work and pay compensation accordingly?

Did UKS know that because of the limits of funding for the testing contract that calibration data was not been done ?

Lets have a contest to determine who has the most creative excuse for cheating/doping and who has the lamest excuse...

Blaming the protocol or testers is probably the weakest....

Merritt probably had the most creative although it made him look like a clown.

How many have actually been honest and 'came clean' from the start? Any?

truthseakr wrote:

Lets have a contest to determine who has the most creative excuse for cheating/doping and who has the lamest excuse...

Blaming the protocol or testers is probably the weakest....

Merritt probably had the most creative although it made him look like a clown.

How many have actually been honest and 'came clean' from the start? Any?

Actually blaming the execution of the test is the hardest as the assumption of the process is that the lab does not make a mistake. To reinforce this they refuse the athlete to see the evidence that may challenge that assumption.

In the Edwards case it took years and use of DPA and FOI Courts to get the evidence that the result should never ever been presented as a positive.

Interesting post for another thread but on this particular thread the actions of a retarded troll.

truthseakr wrote:

Lets have a contest to determine who has the most creative excuse for cheating/doping and who has the lamest excuse...

Blaming the protocol or testers is probably the weakest....

Merritt probably had the most creative although it made him look like a clown.

How many have actually been honest and 'came clean' from the start? Any?

Would you accept a drugs or drink driving test ban,when you believed yourself innocent, when the person who did the test did not follow not only the current best practice ( and for decades) and his own published methods and but also methods that where the basis of the testing contract?

Such breaches being substantial and material.

And breaches that the laboratory tried to cover up and indeed covered up in Parlianentary briefings.

Dr Davis report is on page 9 of this thread . Also press story.

24 years this case has gone on when the evidence never exsisted and lots of covering up by lots of VIP.

2 failed tests C'mon.....What are the odds that he wasn't a cheater? You people are out of touch with reality....

truthseakr wrote:

2 failed tests C'mon.....What are the odds that he wasn't a cheater? You people are out of touch with reality....

Without looking at the evidence you may have a point.

But a retard does not bother to look to the evidence presented.

According to the drug testers own protocols the result should never have been declared a positive.

Do you intend to look to the evidence?

Without cal data results are meaningless , KCL said they never did them.

And not only for Edwards but for other “ positives “ and thus coverups.

I know something about mass spec.

There seems a misconception that the sports doping labs have invented these machines and as such can go in their own way in which they are used.

Nothing could be further from the truth.The use by sports doping control of mass specs and associated instrumentation is a very very small fraction of the use of these machines to detect, identify and quantify compounds.

The instruments have been in use over decades and the methodology of there use has been well presented in peer reviewed journals over that period.

All competent scientists would be have been well trained and supervised in the use of the instruments.

They then may become experts in what the instruments detect but the methods and and principles to come to such conclusions are not of their invention unless such inventions are subject to peer review and esp review by those experts in the manufacture and design of the instruments.

Anything other would not be embraced by a competent scientist.