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

truthseakr wrote:

Michelle V wrote:

There is utterly no evidence of any nature that he cheated.

Lol......2 failed tests mean nothing? You truly live in an alternate Universe....

Is he your father?

It does not mean that he is a cheat as the wada Code makes clear. Do catch up prior to sending message from brain to fingers.

Dallas Dan wrote:

Very suspicious wrote:

They had to cover up from Helsinki blunders.easy tip kcl off .

If there was a tip off then how would that have worked with a sample arriving at the Lab via a currier firm?

The DHL waybill number they said was used was not used so it could not have got lab that way.

The DCO could not remember what he did with it and UK sport refused to provide evidence they had that would have cleared up what happened to it.

All these little details combined are very suspicious.

You can't get into a science discussion as you do not understand facts let alone scientific facts. You can speak and write so I guess that qualifies you as a person. That's all though.

The testing of athletes to check if they cheated depends on secure chain of custody of the sample and valid analysis of the samples. Neither can be claimed for Paul's ban. The DHL farce in 1997 also included loss for over 24 hours, arrival with DHL security tape signalling that the package had been tampered with en route and the sampling officer testified that he could not confirm he sealed the sample or where he took it for despatch! And your name tag suggests you seek truth? Nothing of the sort. You just want to abuse Paul without cause and to ignore the facts all of which have been admitted by UKAD and KCL. All they won't admit is that Paul is innocent and should be formally cleared and reinstated.

Attack the testers...That's all he has....

Need Action wrote:

You can't get into a science discussion as you do not understand facts let alone scientific facts. You can speak and write so I guess that qualifies you as a person. That's all though.

I understand the most important fact. Mr Edwards has exhausted all avenues of appeal available unde UK and Sports Law and needs to be given special treatment in order to revoke his ban.

The only thing that may achieve this is massive public support. This is unlikely to be forthcoming whilst he has a ban from 94 that stands unchallenged. Mr Edwards refuses to answer any questions about what reason he offered at the time. He cannot supply any information about the charges or the case against him in 94, I think I may just have kept a copy of such important documentation.

He says he was bringing a case against the 94 ban, but stopped when the IAAF rules changed. Yet before he was allowed to return he was tested again and banned for life. At that point in time if he had a case against the first ban he could have continued with the court action you all insist would be a slam dunk, overturned the 94 decision and therefor overturned his life ban.

No reasonable explanation as to why, given you all insist he was going to fight the 94 ban and would easily have won, he didn't continue with this case.

All been explained and answered many many times,not least that as he was free to compete there was no reason nor funding to revisit the 94 test.

Are you a troll,seems so.

truthseakr wrote:

Attack the testers...That's all he has....

As it is the testers who have failed in monumental ways who do you think he should fight: Putin?

All you are trying to do is slow the case down you are retarding the process and thus are a gross retarder.

That is just not true. He was never free to compete. Before he was re-instated he was tested and banned for life for 2 failed tests. If at the time he could have refuted the first test then his life ban would have been immediately invalid. If he had the case prepared to challenge the first ban then why on earth would he not have taken this case to court. If he won this would all have been sorted 20 years ago.

So no this has not been explained. There have been various things said but none of them have explained why he would not have taken this case forward in 97 and as a result overturned his life ban.

Ultraboy wrote:

That is just not true. He was never free to compete. Before he was re-instated he was tested and banned for life for 2 failed tests. If at the time he could have refuted the first test then his life ban would have been immediately invalid. If he had the case prepared to challenge the first ban then why on earth would he not have taken this case to court. If he won this would all have been sorted 20 years ago.

So no this has not been explained. There have been various things said but none of them have explained why he would not have taken this case forward in 97 and as a result overturned his life ban.

Cos the 97 was full of documented failures and there was not a data trail for 94 . Lessons learnt from 94.

All explained , retarding troll .

Ultraboy wrote:

That is just not true. He was never free to compete. Before he was re-instated he was tested and banned for life for 2 failed tests. If at the time he could have refuted the first test then his life ban would have been immediately invalid. If he had the case prepared to challenge the first ban then why on earth would he not have taken this case to court. If he won this would all have been sorted 20 years ago.

So no this has not been explained. There have been various things said but none of them have explained why he would not have taken this case forward in 97 and as a result overturned his life ban.

He would have been free had the IAAF changed the rules which they did so so need or resources to fight the 94.

You are a deliberate retarding troll

Utter nonsense. You are saying that in 1997 he had evidence that the 94 ban was wrong. That he was prepared to take the matter to the courts. But suddenly when proving the ban was flawed would reverse his life ban he decided not to pursue it.

If anything there was more reason to bring the case after the life ban than before it. So why did he not bring this case in 97?

Ultraboy wrote:

Utter nonsense. You are saying that in 1997 he had evidence that the 94 ban was wrong. That he was prepared to take the matter to the courts. But suddenly when proving the ban was flawed would reverse his life ban he decided not to pursue it.

If anything there was more reason to bring the case after the life ban than before it. So why did he not bring this case in 97?

No idea what on Earth you are attempting to argue.

But as far as your last sentence and question is concerned, you have been told many many that in 97 the authorities deemed the 94 test closed but the 97 test was alive.

I think you continue raising exactly the same point in an attempt to retard the debate and on that basis you are a retarding troll.

How can you possibly argue that in 94 he was about to get the ban overturned and argue that no appeal was possible?

Here’s the scenario you have described in order:

Paul has a case that he was going to take to the high Court to overturn the94 ban.

IAAF reduce ban term. Paul does not take case to court.

Paul tested and banned for life for 2 failures.

Paul decides not to take his supposed watertight case against the 94 ban to court, even though wiping the first ban would remove his lifetime ban.

It’s really simple. Either he didn’t have a case against the 94 ban that actually made any sense, or he is the worlds dumbest man for leaving it another 16 years to go to court and even then not including this watertight case.

Ultraboy wrote:

How can you possibly argue that in 94 he was about to get the ban overturned and argue that no appeal was possible?

Here’s the scenario you have described in order:

Paul has a case that he was going to take to the high Court to overturn the94 ban.

IAAF reduce ban term. Paul does not take case to court.

Paul tested and banned for life for 2 failures.

Paul decides not to take his supposed watertight case against the 94 ban to court, even though wiping the first ban would remove his lifetime ban.

It’s really simple. Either he didn’t have a case against the 94 ban that actually made any sense, or he is the worlds dumbest man for leaving it another 16 years to go to court and even then not including this watertight case.

I have not described the above.

You have a nasty and distorted imagination and are a troll.

You as in Mr Edwards supporters not one individual.

If you personally have an accurate timeline of the 94 ban, Mr Edwards gah court case, Mr Edwards supposedly finding out things which would invalidate the 94 ban and how that all fits together with the IAAF rule change , the 97 test Andy the subsequent lifetime ban the new please do give it.

I have asked about these things directly but nobody is willing to provide the information in a clear explicit form.

When I asked MR Edwards about the 94 ban and the case against it he said

"Yes that’s what lawyors were told by IAAF so told them not to bother as they were changing it at IAAF congress ." That's looks very much to me to match what I have said the timeline is.

So we know he had what he thought was a case against the 94 ban. He didn't take it because the rule change was going to see him reinstated.

Then he was tested again and banned for life for a second offence. So it's ridiculous to the no to take this supposed watertight case against the first ban to court. Overturning the first ban would have overturned the life ban. No sensible explanation has been offered as to why this wasn't done. If he is telling the truth and the only reason he told the lawyers not to bother was because of the rule change then it's ludicrous not to then pursue this after the second ban.

Money is the answer .I gather you have been told this.

Modahl virtually went bust and the athletics body also.You have been told this. Thus you are a troll.

Ultraboy wrote:

How can you possibly argue that in 94 he was about to get the ban overturned and argue that no appeal was possible?

Here’s the scenario you have described in order:

Paul has a case that he was going to take to the high Court to overturn the94 ban.

IAAF reduce ban term. Paul does not take case to court.

Paul tested and banned for life for 2 failures.

Paul decides not to take his supposed watertight case against the 94 ban to court, even though wiping the first ban would remove his lifetime ban.

It’s really simple. Either he didn’t have a case against the 94 ban that actually made any sense, or he is the worlds dumbest man for leaving it another 16 years to go to court and even then not including this watertight case.

There was no such thing as a water tight case as it was deemed the labs findings are irrevocable.Thus no defence was allowed.