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

One Sided Narrative wrote:

Oh, and why the hellshould anyone believe Edwards, who chose to make unfounded allegations against Michelle Veroken that she fabricated the chain of custody. It was investigated by the Met and she was completely exonerated. So is his one sided presentation replete with personal allegations against individuals to be believed? No chance.

He got banned, he got caught a second time, he got banned for life.

The chain of custody waybill was never used according to DHL evidence made available on their website

Yet the drug tester said he used DHL but could not remember when and how.

UKS would not supply evidence that would have clarified this.

Teacher

It has been stated that no calibration was done by Paul and his supporters, but the evidence that that is actually true is not available for anyone to see. I’m not taking the word of anyone on this, especially when Paul made unfounded accusations against Veroken. It’s simple to scan and post the letter but there is massive reluctance to do this, and sorry but I can’t think of a good reason why that is the case apart from it not saying what is claimed.

As to “every chance to produce them” what? They were not required at the initial meetings. You say it is obvious they never existed, why? It is a perfectly logical position that they were destroyed after 8 years, the only evidence you provide to the contrary is a conspiracy theory and accusation, just like the Veroken case.

On chain of custody, they may not have given you the evidence of what happened, but it has been considered by the panel, Paul’s own correspondence shows that, and they decided that, given the evidence presented TO THEM, that it was not an issue that made the result unreliable. It’s been considered, it does not matter one jot what Paul’s interpretation of the evidence is, he doesn’t get to decide his own case. The relevant body looked at it as a cause to reject the ban, and decided it wasn’t good enough, but without everything they got given you have decided the problems are so big it should have resulted in the ban being overturned.

I couldn’t care less about current standards, if you apply them every single doping ban gets eradicated when you introduce a new standard, that is a straw man argument.

The Davis paper you refer to was written years after the event, but referred in part to many things already considered by the panels, what exactly do you think was new in it? I mean new as in not considered by the panel already, because on Paul’s correspondence it appears there was nothing much.

As to “alleged technical detail” I don’t believe that counts as evidence. Allegations aren’t worth a lot.

Finally I don’t care what intelligence is apparent on other forums.

Oh dear! Do I smell fear and desperation? Refusing to admit what the sampling officer and KCL have already admitted as facts is truly pathetic. There are official documents which I and many others have seen proving what Paul says is true. Paul submitted these documents in his evidence to the High Court. The defendants did not attempt any factual challenge whatsoever but simply went for time barring. Only a fool would try denying the established facts of the case or is there something in it for someone?

It is not possible to get original stuff copied and sent to Letsrun from the UK. How many times do you need telling. The letter from KCL has been quoted fully and such supports the refusal to provide over many years.

All attempts are being made to get original posted..

What will your reaction be when it says cal data never done?

The Davis paper was written as soon as the evidence was released.Nothing in it was considered by the panel because they hid it. Only a person with grossly limited brain power would not have realised such.

It contained many references to problems that have not been refuted.The Davis paper is fully presented on this forum . Read it or get a competent person to put you on their knee and read it to you.

Again, you should return to reading classes I understand adult ones are available after your athletics club has finished training. When I said alleged technical detail I referred to the submission by the lab. ie on tech detail gets trumped when the real tech detail comes out.You get convicted on one tech detail ie TE ratio and should get cleared if such is false.

If new procedures and techniques and better science are applicable then they are applied both to old cases and new ones/ arrests. Do you not pay attention to the news over the decades.

However in this case there was no need for new methods as the same basic procedures that have existed for decades where ignored.

What allegations where made against Veroken ?

I have read that Hylton case collapsed when the Lab (KCL) admitted it had made a technical mistake and monitored the wrong ion.

As this was a technicality should he have been cleared.

One would assume so.

Thus in the Edwards case if the technical evidence is wrong should he be cleared on such a technical detail?

One would assume so.

And, don’t tell me, are we learning that the same person did both the A and B analysis.Fatal to the prosecution if such had been hidden from the defence.

The next thing we are going to hear where the substituted urine came from.

Common sense type of person wrote:

I have read that Hylton case collapsed when the Lab (KCL) admitted it had made a technical mistake and monitored the wrong ion.

As this was a technicality should he have been cleared.

One would assume so.

Thus in the Edwards case if the technical evidence is wrong should he be cleared on such a technical detail?

One would assume so.

And, don’t tell me, are we learning that the same person did both the A and B analysis.Fatal to the prosecution if such had been hidden from the defence.

The next thing we are going to hear where the substituted urine came from.

I have heard about taking the piss but never giving the piss.

And have to say taking the piss out of the one sided narrative poster is quite good.”Sit on someone’s knee and get them to read it to you “. Very good.

you now that you contacted me on Facebook and that the leettr from KCL is their for Everyone to see so ever person can see KCL said the cal data were never done so why do you bother to pretend things

Paul, you have me confused with someone else I have not had any contact with you on Facebook or anywhere else. I will try to find you on Facebook to review the letter.

Are you referring to the letter that says it was not part of the IOC protocol to run calibration for samples? It does not clarify whether calibration was run intermittently on the system, but if the IOC didn’t require calibration for individual tests then how is the lack of such data being available and kept with individual tests a valid point for reinstatement.

It would appear the scientific standard under which you were found guilty did not require specific calibration for each test and the keeping of those records. They were the protocols apparently, and it appears KCL met them.

Whether KCL calibrated every time you cannot say from that letter, whether they calibrated specifically for your tests you cannot say from the letter. All you can say is that it was not done routinely for every test, and since the protocol didn’t require it to be done they didn’t keep data showing whether they did it specifically on this occasion or not.

How does them following the protocols of the time make your ban invalid?

Ps Teacher, for someone who claims to be able to read can you not read the replies from UK Sport where they looked at the Davis report and said it contained no new evidence that was significant. You like to pretend that it hasn’t been looked at, it has.

Btw the statute of limitation on High Court Damages claims, as brought by Mr Edwards was, and remains, at 6 years, under the 1980 Act.

One Sided Narrative wrote:

Ps Teacher, for someone who claims to be able to read can you not read the replies from UK Sport where they looked at the Davis report and said it contained no new evidence that was significant. You like to pretend that it hasn’t been looked at, it has.

UKS was the funder of and monitor of the contract with KCL.

They did not employ one person who had any qualifications to remotely come to that conclusion or any conclusion for that matter.

They have not one minute of any meeting of review, Nothing at all, They refused point blank to provide any reasoning.

They said that they held a desk top review.

A desk top review with not one person present with any experience or qualifications and not one note nor memo,pre or post. Now does that seem at all like a review?

Put the Davis paper to anyone with a background in the area and see what they say.

OneSided Narrative wrote:

Btw the statute of limitation on High Court Damages claims, as brought by Mr Edwards was, and remains, at 6 years, under the 1980 Act.

Statutes of limitations refers to actions brought by a plaintiff/ prosecution and not when new evidence appears.Do catch up.It has already been explained.

You have had this explained to you many times.

The test was done under ISO 17025.

This refers to previously peer reviewed papers for methodology . Cowens own papers have been cited.

The IOC says competent science.

All papers by experts in mass spec say cal data must be done.

They said that they had the correct data for years and years but refused to provide it. When forced by FOI they said they never had it after all.

Beloff , chair of hearing was assured it existed.

KCL provided cal data in other contemporaneous cases, freely and with the original data pack.

All this you have persistently ignored.

You are either a retard or a troll!

Ps

The letter of Dec 09 says that they did not run contemporaneous cal data for the analysis submitted to the hearings.

It makes no ref to IOC protocols.

I suggest you read it before further comment.

On face book . But afraid not good photo copy.

House of Commons debate daily mail etc all say no data on the 30 pages of thread .

The evidence that was hidden from the defence demonstrated that there was not enough urine voided to carry out the analyses that were done.

Rather significant !