Kavanaugh wrote:
Davis’s paper highlights extraordinary failures by the doping lab.
Who was in charge of the analysis that the Davis paper questions.
Kavanaugh wrote:
Davis’s paper highlights extraordinary failures by the doping lab.
Who was in charge of the analysis that the Davis paper questions.
Prof D Cowen
Davis report wrote:
bob woodward wrote:
The truth emerges, Paul. Eventually anyway.
The truth is within the Davis Report.
Letsrun principals have chosen not to apply their principles to this evidence.
Shame on you Letsrun.
Still Letsrun ignore this blatant musjustice.
Michelle V wrote:
Prof D Cowen
Who was in charge of the financial negotiations for the testing contract with UK Sport.
The very very same Prof David Cowen.
Michelle V wrote:
The very very same Prof David Cowen.
Was Prof David Cowen allowed to do both the financials and the analysis as this could be a conflict of interest ?
Interesred 2 wrote:
Michelle V wrote:
The very very same Prof David Cowen.
Was Prof David Cowen allowed to do both the financials and the analysis as this could be a conflict of interest ?
No!
This was explicitly forbidden by the testing contract which stated that it was to be done in compliance with ISO 17025.
Michelle V wrote:
Interesred 2 wrote:
Was Prof David Cowen allowed to do both the financials and the analysis as this could be a conflict of interest ?
No!
This was explicitly forbidden by the testing contract which stated that it was to be done in compliance with ISO 17025.
Did anyone raise this breach of the core procedures for all forensic analysis and not just doping control?
Interested 2 wrote:
Michelle V wrote:
No!
This was explicitly forbidden by the testing contract which stated that it was to be done in compliance with ISO 17025.
Did anyone raise this breach of the core procedures for all forensic analysis and not just doping control?
Don’t be silly, UKS sport provided all the evidence to UKA to prosecute. A breach of the contract was not going to be made public.
Michelle V wrote:
Interested 2 wrote:
Did anyone raise this breach of the core procedures for all forensic analysis and not just doping control?
Don’t be silly, UKS sport provided all the evidence to UKA to prosecute. A breach of the contract was not going to be made public.
Who funded the body that prosecuted Edwards on the evidence UK Sport paid for from the lab?
Interested 2 wrote:
Michelle V wrote:
Don’t be silly, UKS sport provided all the evidence to UKA to prosecute. A breach of the contract was not going to be made public.
Who funded the body that prosecuted Edwards on the evidence UK Sport paid for from the lab?
Surprise !
It was the very same UK Sport.
Michelle V wrote:
Interested 2 wrote:
Who funded the body that prosecuted Edwards on the evidence UK Sport paid for from the lab?
Surprise !
It was the very same UK Sport.
The evidence that UK Sport provided, did it include an unbroken chain of custody?
Interested 2 wrote:
Michelle V wrote:
Surprise !
It was the very same UK Sport.
The evidence that UK Sport provided, did it include an unbroken chain of custody?
No it went missing for a few days.And, it was meant to have gone via DHL but their waybill said it never did.
Michelle V wrote:
Interested 2 wrote:
The evidence that UK Sport provided, did it include an unbroken chain of custody?
No it went missing for a few days.And, it was meant to have gone via DHL but their waybill said it never did.
Did UKS help to discover where the sample went?
Dear Interested 2
No, they refused to provide the DCO’s evidence and logs that would have given key information as to what happened to the sample when it went missing under the control of UKS.
Michelle V wrote:
Dear Interested 2
No, they refused to provide the DCO’s evidence and logs that would have given key information as to what happened to the sample when it went missing under the control of UKS.
How on earth did UK Sport get away with such a refusal to provide evidence?
Michelle V wrote:
Dear Interested 2
No, they refused to provide the DCO’s evidence and logs that would have given key information as to what happened to the sample when it went missing under the control of UKS.
Am I correct that the same UKS then refused to discuss or act on the Davis Report thus shutting out more evidence?
Interested 2 wrote:
Michelle V wrote:
Dear Interested 2
No, they refused to provide the DCO’s evidence and logs that would have given key information as to what happened to the sample when it went missing under the control of UKS.
Am I correct that the same UKS then refused to discuss or act on the Davis Report thus shutting out more evidence?
Uk sport refused to allow any of its staff to respond in any way to solving the questions raised by the Davis paper.
A paper which could and was only written when evidence refused by UKS was finally released.
Davis report wrote:
Interested 2 wrote:
Am I correct that the same UKS then refused to discuss or act on the Davis Report thus shutting out more evidence?
How can the anti doping be credible if this going on .
Uk sport refused to allow any of its staff to respond in any way to solving the questions raised by the Davis paper.
A paper which could and was only written when evidence refused by UKS was finally released.
This case shows what happens when none are there to police the police.
Classic case.