Paul looked through all the photos on your Facebook and your entire time line, can’t see a 2009 letter from Kings, which document is it?
Paul looked through all the photos on your Facebook and your entire time line, can’t see a 2009 letter from Kings, which document is it?
One Sided Narrative wrote:
Paul looked through all the photos on your Facebook and your entire time line, can’t see a 2009 letter from Kings, which document is it?
I hope you eventually find it without difficulty .
Please note that the lawyers at The Mail found this entirely satisfactory evidence that contemporaneous calibration data was NOT done.
This will then leave the questions of how such complied with compentant science and compliance with ISO 17O25.
Will find a better copy for you and put it on Facebook by weekend
There isn't a copy of a 2009 KCL letter on your Facebook page at all as far as I can see, good or bad copy. There's the 2010 one which clarifies that the calibration for individual tests was not part of the protocol, which is unsurprising as Mass Spectrometer calibration lasts weeks.
Please don’t tell me third party what lawyers thought. Newspaper lawyers don’t look for the truth they look to see if there is enough evidence that they could mount a defence in a civil case for specific wordings in a published article. That is not the same as proving something. From your need to say this Michelle I guess the letter does not say they did not calibrate the machine, despite repeated assertions that that is what the letter says.
Paul, it’s not a case of a better copy I can’t see any KCL correspondence from 2009 on your Facebook page at all, let alone one saying they did not calibrate.
One Sided Narrative wrote:
There isn't a copy of a 2009 KCL letter on your Facebook page at all as far as I can see, good or bad copy. There's the 2010 one which clarifies that the calibration for individual tests was not part of the protocol, which is unsurprising as Mass Spectrometer calibration lasts weeks.
Gee whizz , you are thick are you not? Or a troll or both.
Contemporaneous mean of the time and not the decade.
Cowens own cited papers makes it clear that contemporaneous cal data needs doing and such was the basis of the applicability of ISO 17025 in which the contract to test was carried out.These papers have been cited on this post together with many others of the period.
If contemporaneous work was not needed and any old data would do why did WADA make such a requirement for the IST when they initiated such.
Why is the basis for the use of Mass Spec instruments based on such.
All this has been explained many times.
Protocols did not exist at that time from the IOC, other than the statement about competent science.
Cowen cited papers stated what competant science was. He ignored his own work.
I repeat; you are a thicko to think you can override cited papers, a real out and out thicko.
One Sided Narrative wrote:
Please don’t tell me third party what lawyers thought. Newspaper lawyers don’t look for the truth they look to see if there is enough evidence that they could mount a defence in a civil case for specific wordings in a published article. That is not the same as proving something. From your need to say this Michelle I guess the letter does not say they did not calibrate the machine, despite repeated assertions that that is what the letter says.
Paul, it’s not a case of a better copy I can’t see any KCL correspondence from 2009 on your Facebook page at all, let alone one saying they did not calibrate.
You have had a quotation from the letter of Dec 9 th 2009 which said they did not do them for the samples submitted to the hearings.
If you had a brain above very limited it would be able to work on assumptions to make progress but no the this is beyond you.It would be reasonable to work on an assumption to be reviewed accordingly esp as the Mail saw the letter from KCL legals saying they did not do cal data and published what it had read.
Teacher are you a f@cking moron?
I am not taking a selective quote from anyone I am asking for the actual evidence. Paul has been shown with Michelle Veroken allegations to make up accusations, so no I won’t accept your word for it I don’t see why asking to see the evidence is such a big problem for you.
As to the need for data, none of the “evidence” present thus far shows that calibration was not done in line with protocols, since the 2010 KCL letter clearly says recording the data with tests was absolutely not part of the protocols.
So please show me the evidence that it is not the case that they did regular calibration, but this was not recorded with the samples or kept with the samples as it was not required to be specifically for the samples.
I can’t find any way in which not having the calibration data available breaches the protocols at the time, and the evidence thus far just shows data wasn’t recorded
One sided narrative.
Have you worked out were the extra urine came from for the analysis yet?
Or are you dependent on the IOC not having a protocol to say that you had to test only the athletes urine for a drug test ?
After all they never actually said you could not substitute urine so it must be ok.
Keep 'blowing smoke' Paul.....You know you cheated....
truthseakr wrote:
Keep 'blowing smoke' Paul.....You know you cheated....
How can moaning about someone’s urine been tested and not yours be said to be “blowing smoke”?
Well well , dummy out of pram.
A refusal to engage in the normal form of constructive debate by intelligent people .
There were no protocols ,it was not that there were protocols and there was a ref that they ( cal data not needed).
Thus it becomes dependent on the statement that competent science is to be used .This then leads absolutely to Cowen’s papers were he states such.
He ignored his own papers.
Why on earth do you not deal with this ??
Further the contract for testing was set against IS0 17025 , which again refs Cowen’s own procedures in cited papers.
Which do you stay silent ?
The answer is that you are out of you tiny depth.
We now have an other argument from you that the cal data may have been done but was not recorded.
What a stupidly ; recording data and results is rather important to science. But then you are out of your depth.
Have you bothered to sit on someone’s knee and have the Davis paper explained when he , as an independent expert , states that in other cases at the time cal data done and provided.
What allegations ref Veroken did Edwards make. Your have been asked but have refused .
Ps
Where did the extra urine come from?
KCL confirmed to the FOI investigator that they ran no contemporaneous calibration for Paul's test. This is all discoverable from FOI so there is no point you pretending it is not true. I personally hold a copy I downloaded from the FOI website of the FOI 1st tier tribunal when Paul asked for KCL to be censured for saying previously that they had calibration when they did not. Alternatively that they actually had defective data that the were hiding. The tribunal concluded that they really did not have data for Paul but believed that they had some calibration data from some time before and after which Paul should be allowed to have. When Paul duly asked KCL to provide this they claimed to have destroyed it! This when they new it could be the only evidence they did anything properly for any athletes around that time.
Just to reconfirm. This type of forensic assay without contemporaneous calibration is invalid and worthless. I could provide you with references published around 1997 by FDA and others to that effect but I suspect it would be a waste of my time because you don't actually want to know.
Well said , far better than I could.
I would add the the IOC med code said that there had to be SOP’s . These were requested but refused, why?
I think it would be reasonable to assume that they would have said cal data to be done.
It would have been game set and match for KCL to produce a SOP accepted by IOC that said no cal data.But they just refused.
All in all Cowen disregarded his own papers that were the basis of the contract to test and for KCL to get paid .
But as you have noted that there are some on this thread who have closed minds and very limited understanding .
Action Needed
Look lets get this straight, the lab were not required to provide calibration data for the tests. It clearly says that in their 2010 letter on Paul's facebook. The fact that he was found guilty without this data again shows this is true.
The letters again show that it was not part of the protocol to do calibration for every test, unsurprising as calibration on a mass spectrometer lasts weeks.
So Paul asks for the calibration data under FOI, and they say there is no calibration data that relates to you, which is true, because it isn't personal s at a and was not run for him individually.
Now it may well be that KCL thought they had (not on Paul's file because it wasn't needed on his file) calibration data from around that time, but as it was not part of the bundle required by the doping panel why would they keep it? It is absolutely clear that the lack.of calibration data specific to Paul's tests doesn't mean the machine was not calibrated, and that it being destroyed would seem innocuous.
So it comes down to the letter that no one appears to be able to show me. It's not in Paul's Google docs that I can find, and it's not on Paul's facebook although he thought it was. In this letter the exact wording and context is massively important. So I just need people to show the actual evidence, but apparently that means I have a closed mind. Got to say I don't see it that way, and the closed minds seem to be those refusing to provide that evidence, or insulting people repeatedly. Anyway since none of you can show the letter I'm off, without the evidence I am going to take it that the experts on the panel and at UK Sport got it right, rather than believing taking the word of a twice convicted drug cheat who makes up allegations against officials that the Police find to be without foundation.
Should be on facebook fm mr hogan foi commissioner office stating no calibration done on any athletes samples So it’s not very good copy I asked various people to get better copy .
The evidence at the time hearing took place was not disclosed . This was several years after I’ve been banned . So I didn’t have the evidence because it had been hidden from me at the time of hearing.Two lawyers and the scientist went to kcl They were told six pages exsisted but there was over 600 and a report was written five years after the hearing.
The Dec 09 was on Facebook yesterday morning.
You choose not to see it.
The panel asked for the data and was told it existed.
You have been told this.
Your argument is like saying that a police speed gun was once calibrated at some time , so that’s ok.
You ignore the ISO 17025 to follow Cowen’s own papers which are cited.
You ignore that KCL refused to provide the SOP .
You ignore the requirement that there should be science that is competent.
You ignore that KCL said they had contemporaneous data and informed the Minister of this claim.
You claim that under such intense pressure you deem it innocuous that data was destroyed.
You ignore persistent requests to substantiate your claim about Edwards and the allegations about Veroken and the Police.
You ignore that you are out of your depth.
It is such a shame that the special educational needs budget was cut for you schooling.
Ok, one last chance.
Where is it on this Paul's facebook page, it was said to be a letter dated Dec 2009 originally said to be from KCL legal.
I've scrolled through, so which document is it?
Paul seems to.have changed his mind about who it is from, to being a summary by the FOI people, so perhaps not the wording or context of the KCL actual response.
Teacher do stop with the personal insults you clearly want to believe Paul but there are those of us who want credible evidence before believing this one sided narrative.
Anyway, unless anyone can actual show the actual KCL response in context you only have an unsubstantiated allegation. Asking others to believe a convicted cheat on that basis is ridiculous.