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

Integrity wrote:

Kings college is supposed Have the best Labs in the world don’t think so.

Let’s be fair.

WADA raised the standards.

However before that the Edwards and Hylton cases showed great errors inc not the correct calibration data work up, not monitoring the correct ion, not adhering to ISO 17025 and not having enough urine voided to do the analysis stated.

Michelle you keep saying amount of my depth, really I am not.

It's simple, you are making up what the actual protocols were. You reference I SO etc but you cannot show what the actual requirements that the lab were required to meet were. All the talk of peer reviewed papers is a complete red herring. Unless you can show that he did not provide the work as required and requested by the authorities who contracted him then you are not demonstrating anything that merits consideration of reinstatement.

All the insults and pretence that somehow any other standards are relevant is spin. Did he do the tests under the standards that the relevant authorities requested or not. You don't know but continue to pretend you do.

P.S. ISO's change their protocols highlighting their number, do you have a relevant copy from 1997, because it's no good quoting the current one.

There was no universal off the shelf protocols until WADA and their IST’s.

The protocols were a bit of a combination of the following.

The contract for testing between UKS and KCL was based on ISO 17025. This required KCL to follow published research methods evidenced by the person doing the test and having competence to do so.This would be the core protocol or standard.

Current best practice would have applied.

The IOC Med Code required that there be the correct procedures to ensure correct reporting of retention times.

UKS say that the work should be have been done to a compentant scientific standard.

Beloff , chair of hearing, asked for assurance that the the correct data correlation runs had been done.

He did not ask this because there was a tick list protocol but because common sense, previous experience,best current practice and advice from the expert on the panel indicated such.

I think that the above are not pretences.

Perhaps you could find the appropriate protocols..

You have to be an intellectual baboon to think that there was not a requirement , explicit or implied or one demonstrated by other hearings at the same time,

not to have correct cal data work done nor and for there not to be enough urine voided to to the work done that KCL have made clear they did.

As for the applicable ISO; it is a public doc so look and read it in entirely

Or contact a practitioner in the area.

Where do you think the extra urine came from?

And do you expect a protocol to exist that says” thou shall not piss in someone’s else’s sample when doing analyses of doping samples”. Answer please!

When you have done your evening classes in beginners science then come back.

Ps. Would you have failed an MOT if the station fulfilled the operatives protocols but the machine was not working. And please!

Pps, can’t be bothered with further comments of your out of depthness as you post says enough for me.

I would also ask you what was the protocol that should have been applied at the time.

Come on do tell.

When Hylton was cleared because KCL monitored the wrong ion was there a protocol.

There was not.

It was the application of best current practice and published papers that did it.

Further,if protocols existed that ran counter to the above it would be the protocols that would be rejected as not fit for purpose.

And,I would also be interested in where you think the extra urine came from.

I really really would like to know where the extra urine came from.

Given that onesidednarative seems to claim to be quite a clever chap, having challenged Dr Davis who had a PhD in Mass Spec, I particularly who like know where he thinks the extra urine came from.

And I really really would like to know if anyone things the evidence by Cowen and the FACT that the majority of it was hidden from the defence would be enough to pass the test of “ beyond reasonable doubt” ?

Prof Cowan never produced the evidence to prove the case .

The case against Mr Edwards should be dropped forthwith . The evidence would never stand up in any hearing or court of law.

Honest wrote:

Prof Cowan never produced the evidence to prove the case .

It may be better to say that the evidence that would have cleared Edwards was hidden.

And who has any idea where the extra urine came from as according to Cowen it could not have been from Edwards.

As I understand that Mr Edwards is still banned . The Case should be dropped and heshould be reinstated forthwith. The evidence just doesn’t stack up .

There have been,in particular, two posters, ultraboy and one sided narrative, who have made attempts to deny the new evidence that appeared after the hearing.

Evidence that showed very serious doubt about the safeness of the life ban.

Eventually after much very frustrating and repetitive argument they have now had to withdraw from the fray.

We have in this case the following.

Fractured chain of custody.

No calibration data.

Urine substituted from some source unknown.

Hidden 600 pages of evidence which led to Davis report that set out many many unanswered and damning questions.

All attempts, on this forum, to deny the above have disintegrated.

Edwards should be reinstated.

Michelle V wrote:

There have been,in particular, two posters, ultraboy and one sided narrative, who have made attempts to deny the new evidence that appeared after the hearing.

Evidence that showed very serious doubt about the safeness of the life ban.

Eventually after much very frustrating and repetitive argument they have now had to withdraw from the fray.

We have in this case the following.

Fractured chain of custody.

No calibration data.

Urine substituted from some source unknown.

Hidden 600 pages of evidence which led to Davis report that set out many many unanswered and damning questions.

All attempts, on this forum, to deny the above have disintegrated.

Edwards should be reinstated.

Before he gets reinstated I would like to know where on Earth the urine came from that was substituted and incorrectly and immorally used instead of Edwards’

You are utterly misrepresenting things.

In the case of both discussions all that is happened is you have provided zero contemporaneous evidence about the issues that were being queried and gone off to other topics.

The whole thing is utterly, as the other poster said, one sided. Presenting just your side of the case, failing to provide specific answers to specific questions and claiming that anybody who actually bothers to enquiry is out of their depth shows that this is not about actually discussing the case, it’s about just putting out loads of stuff and screaming foul play.

If you want Edwards ban revoked then go to court. Their your card will be thoroughly examined within the jaw and both sides of the case considered. If you do not have this option, because the case is tone barred then tough.

Nobody can possibly just take the info you present and determine if the ban is unsafe. That isn’t how it works, both sides must be considered.

You guys are wasting your time with Ultraboy and One Sided Narrative.

neutral observation wrote:

You guys are wasting your time with Ultraboy and One Sided Narrative.

As a matter of principle these two brothers of the strange world of incompetent posts on other forums need to be reminded that they will get no “ special needs” treatment from me.

I didn’t do anything of the sort you lying twat. I’ve not discussed any of that. I have asked about the earlier ban and asked for contemporaneous info about those first tests. Rather than discuss this you just divert to other points all of the time. I haven’t taken on Davis, That’s just nonsense. Neither has the other poster, he's just reasinably asked what were the standards required and got nothing but hyperbole in return.

Ultraboy wrote:

I didn’t do anything of the sort you lying twat. I’ve not discussed any of that. I have asked about the earlier ban and asked for contemporaneous info about those first tests. Rather than discuss this you just divert to other points all of the time. I haven’t taken on Davis, That’s just nonsense. Neither has the other poster, he's just reasinably asked what were the standards required and got nothing but hyperbole in return.

If you wish to discuss something that was 20 pages ago the sensible thing is to quote that post.

But that required and education and brainpower.

Two matters conspicuously missing.

Even in the above post you have failed to indicate what you are referring to.

This thread is about the 97 test.

As for the standards required ; such have been provided several dozen times.

The both of you are of very limited intelligence and all questions that can be answered as to what the standards required have been provided.

If you and your close brotherly chum can’t understand this then you pair are of inadequate intelligence to grace this forum.

Go back to eight lane and insult them with the lack brainpower .

Retarded pair of ultra and onesided.

Where did the extra urine come from?

Ditto

Ditto

Ditto

Sleep well in your prams and I hope you will awake fresh enough to deal with the above question.

My sources. Say they were covering up what went on in Helsinki in 1994 .Thats why the 1997 test was fiddle.ie no evidence .

Michelle V wrote:

Retarded pair of ultra and onesided.

Where did the extra urine come from?

Ditto

Ditto

Ditto

Sleep well in your prams and I hope you will awake fresh enough to deal with the above question.

Come on numpties, apply your brains to the above.