What do the experts think of this wrote:
Dr Davis report wrote:
This report speaks volumes for the integrity and credibility testing should not be done .I note this would’ve been thrown out at the very first day of test
What do the experts think of this wrote:
Dr Davis report wrote:
This report speaks volumes for the integrity and credibility testing should not be done .I note this would’ve been thrown out at the very first day of test
Honest o wrote:
Davis report wrote:
AIU Chair Howman said that there had to be both transparency and integrity in doping cases.
When will this happen in the Edwards case?
A case built against him on hidden evidence and cover ups.
Come on , Howman, you as ex head of WADA know all about the need to do calibration data work ups and what happens if you don’t.
You can also work out why this evidence was hidden.
When will Howman act?
So All organisations involved in the testing procedures and integrity all covered up wonder why .What is the bigger agenda
Did anyone have it in for Edwards, anyone who had any influence on the testing at the Lab ?
C4 of the report states that sample having been spiked!
What is all that about!
Davis report reader wrote:
C4 of the report states that sample having been spiked!
What is all that about!
Can anyone have any doubt that Edwards has been had over?
Glory whole wrote:
Davis report reader wrote:
C4 of the report states that sample having been spiked!
What is all that about!
Can anyone have any doubt that Edwards has been had over?
I add, kippered , screwed, stymied.
How did they get away with monitoring/ measuring/reporting the wrong ion and not the one that that is for the banned compound?
How did they get away with testing someone else’s urine?
Crippy wrote:
How did they get away with monitoring/ measuring/reporting the wrong ion and not the one that that is for the banned compound?
How did they get away with testing someone else’s urine?
They knew they had a problem; why else would they have used Health and Safety to keep the evidence away from Edwards when Edwards made very specific and legal based questions to get at this evidence?
Davis report wrote:
Crippy wrote:
How did they get away with monitoring/ measuring/reporting the wrong ion and not the one that that is for the banned compound?
How did they get away with testing someone else’s urine?
They knew they had a problem; why else would they have used Health and Safety to keep the evidence away from Edwards when Edwards made very specific and legal based questions to get at this evidence?
From what I have read on this thread it seems that UKAD and UKS would have known about this hiding
Firstly it was raised in Parliament.
Secondly staff who worked for David Cowen at the Lab on the matter had transferred to significant position at UKAD.
Health and Safetly used to restrict evidence, beyond belief.
Why are Letsrun no getting involved.
There is a big big story of injustice sat on their doorstep.
Crippy wrote:
Why are Letsrun no getting involved.
There is a big big story of injustice sat on their doorstep.
Anything to do with Nike and Letsrun are right there
Crippy wrote:
Crippy wrote:
Why are Letsrun no getting involved.
There is a big big story of injustice sat on their doorstep.
Anything to do with Nike and Letsrun are right there
This thread contains the only public demonstration of what can happen in doping control when the doping controllers control and evaluate each other and we have the manifest risk of conflict of interest due to the funding mechanisms.
Yet Letsrun does nothing.
Come on Letsrun, take advantage of all the facts on this thread.
Hidden evidence
Wrong compound reported
Substituted urine
Breach of conflict of interest as set out in ISO17025
Crippy wrote:
Come on Letsrun, take advantage of all the facts on this thread.
Hidden evidence
Wrong compound reported
Substituted urine
Breach of conflict of interest as set out in ISO17025
Letsrun got at ?
No ,must be something else.
Crippy wrote:
Crippy wrote:
Come on Letsrun, take advantage of all the facts on this thread.
Hidden evidence
Wrong compound reported
Substituted urine
Breach of conflict of interest as set out in ISO17025
Letsrun got at ?
No ,must be something else.
From what I can work out I think it is necessary to go right back to the drug testing contract between UKS and Kings College.
Is it true that one of those involved was suddenly put on “garden leave”?
Honest wrote:
Crippy wrote:
Letsrun got at ?
No ,must be something else.
From what I can work out I think it is necessary to go right back to the drug testing contract between UKS and Kings College.
Is it true that one of those involved was suddenly put on “garden leave”?
There seems to be a cover-up about the credibility of the scientific evidence because at the VIP people involved.
Honest wrote:
Honest wrote:
From what I can work out I think it is necessary to go right back to the drug testing contract between UKS and Kings College.
Is it true that one of those involved was suddenly put on “garden leave”?
There seems to be a cover-up about the credibility of the scientific evidence because at the VIP people involved.
One became a Dame ( a female Knight) and then a Baroness.
Glory whole wrote:
Glory whole wrote:
Can anyone have any doubt that Edwards has been had over?
I add, kippered , screwed, stymied.
Half of the posts in this thread have spaces after a word then a comma then a space. Whoever is posting under 6000 different names could you possibly make it less obvious, please? It's annoying AF.
Joe Eastwood wrote:
The GC Mass Spec was not new or even recently new technology in 1997and it was/is accepted that running a test without contemporaneous calibration invalidates the test. There were publications (e.g. Goldberger, FDA) at the time on this and the WADA protocol now formally requires what was always known to be scientifically essential. That is why the laboratory gave 4 different excuses over several years not to provide the data they said they had and only admitted to FOI in 2009 that they had never run calibration. They knew that this invalidated the test and that they had misled Paul, the Information Commissioner and even Parliament in 2006 on the issue. Fixing matters would involve a shameful admission of apparent scientific malparactice and misinformation with regards to data collected.
However, this critical omission and subsequent evasion was only one of a catalogue of dreadful blunders. Apart from having no secure chain of custody of the sample they, for example, contaminated the water blanks with radiolabelled hormone standards, could not rationalise the high number of results with the volume of urine available and even reported on the wrong ion. Paul's video even shows how a lab results sheet was "amended" in a totally unacceptable way that is outlawed in science labs everywhere.
Paul's expert showed that the entire testing in 1997 was a worthless shambles. It could not be defended in Court so an expensive time barring defence through a big International Company specialising in Statute of Limitations was used to avoid the issue. If Paul were guilty and the sampling or testing was any good submitting a proper study report with all the relevant data to the High Court would have been a less expensive and an honourable action. However, any report would simply only contain the laughably flawed info Paul has to hand and hoist them by their own petard.
It is truly a tragic scandal and disgraces the sport of athletics which I love.
This point still needs sorting.
Mate of Joe wrote:
Joe Eastwood wrote:
The GC Mass Spec was not new or even recently new technology in 1997and it was/is accepted that running a test without contemporaneous calibration invalidates the test. There were publications (e.g. Goldberger, FDA) at the time on this and the WADA protocol now formally requires what was always known to be scientifically essential. That is why the laboratory gave 4 different excuses over several years not to provide the data they said they had and only admitted to FOI in 2009 that they had never run calibration. They knew that this invalidated the test and that they had misled Paul, the Information Commissioner and even Parliament in 2006 on the issue. Fixing matters would involve a shameful admission of apparent scientific malparactice and misinformation with regards to data collected.
However, this critical omission and subsequent evasion was only one of a catalogue of dreadful blunders. Apart from having no secure chain of custody of the sample they, for example, contaminated the water blanks with radiolabelled hormone standards, could not rationalise the high number of results with the volume of urine available and even reported on the wrong ion. Paul's video even shows how a lab results sheet was "amended" in a totally unacceptable way that is outlawed in science labs everywhere.
Paul's expert showed that the entire testing in 1997 was a worthless shambles. It could not be defended in Court so an expensive time barring defence through a big International Company specialising in Statute of Limitations was used to avoid the issue. If Paul were guilty and the sampling or testing was any good submitting a proper study report with all the relevant data to the High Court would have been a less expensive and an honourable action. However, any report would simply only contain the laughably flawed info Paul has to hand and hoist them by their own petard.
It is truly a tragic scandal and disgraces the sport of athletics which I love.
Why .
This point still needs sorting.
Another story today of a conviction been overthrown because of the evidence hidden from the defence.
But nothing happens in the Edwards case.
Is there a rule against attaching a helium balloon to yourself while running a road race?
Am I living in the twilight zone? The Boston Marathon weather was terrible!
How rare is it to run a sub 5 minute mile AND bench press 225?
Mark Coogan says that if you could only do 3 workouts as a 1500m runner you should do these
Move over Mark Coogan, Rojo and John Kellogg share their 3 favorite mile workouts
Red Bull (who sponsors Mondo) calls Mondo the pole vaulting Usain Bolt. Is that a fair comparison?