Michelle V wrote:
Nob ed wrote:
The only sense is that it could not be Edwards’
urine that was analysed.
Correct ; and they hid this from the hearing and then UK Sport said this info was not new and was known to the hearing but it only came out years later via an FOI enquiry.
And UKS paid for the analysis.
There seems something very very dodgy about the analysis.
I have also read that they knew it was Edwards’ sample when they did the A sample .
Truly appalling!