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

Need Action wrote:

Lets simplify matters and engage with reality.

In the UK if you are accused of wrong doing either in a criminal or civil court the accuser has to provide credible evidence against you. This was not the case for Paul in either 1994 or 1997. Paul has always categorically denied doping.

The offence of doping is determined solely on the scientific testing of urine in athletes. Not by interrogation on TV entertainment shows.

In anti-doping testing the procedures are not especially complex and use simple methods to ensure sample integrity.

The actual testing involves technology that was developed around 1950 and has been refined over the years to be reliable and reproducible if carried out correctly.

In Paul's case the sample was not taken properly , was not stored and transported correctly and was manipulated in various ways in 1994 and 1997. In neither test was a valid sample used.

The testing in 1994 was considered unsatisfactory by both Dr Brown and Professor Makin who objected to the proceedings. A proper analytical report was never provided to Paul or his defence team and has never been accessible. It almost certainly never existed in a credible form.

In 1997 the analytical data from the testing was accessed by Paul and examined by Dr Davis and otheres who declared it invalid as it was full of technical errors and lacked calibration data.

In simple terms in had not been carried out correctly and could not be relied on at all.

The laboratory representatives assured the disciplinary tribunal in 2000 that, although it had not presented the data, it had run calibration data for Paul's test in June 1997 and that it was satisfactory. KCL wrote a letter in 2004 with the title "Paul Edwards"repeating that calibration data was generatedt and that it was used for accurate quantification of the result.

In 2009 after a further 5 years of FOI pressure KCL admitted that it did not generate any calibration data for Paul's test.

Leaving aside all the other embarrassing errors in the analysis this lack of calibration alone invalidated the whole procedure which is why admission of its non existence was resisted to the very end of the FOI saga when the FOI officer finally demanded that it was handed over.

So to summarise there has never been any credible or valid evidence against Paul so he has no case to answer.

For information: An analytical report of a bioanalysis of urine measuring drugs such as testosterone has for decades always be included in any medicines licence application to the European Medicines agency and will often contain data on 20 or more human subjects. It will contain details of sampling, analytical methods and results including calibration. The calibration covers proof that the correct substance/s are being measured and that the measurement is accurate and reproducible. This kind of report is required by WADA nowadays to a great extent as a result of the Modahl, Edwards and Hilton cases.

If UKA or KCL could produce such a valid report on Paul i.e. a simple one subject report it surely would. Such a report proving Paul's guilt would end the fight for justice and would not cost a great deal to write up. However, it is absolutely clear that the data on sampling and testing is nonsense and if written into a formal report would clear Paul rather than convict him and would also expose the authors to scientific and judicial ridicule. This is precisely why it can not be written and why the Statute of Limitations ploy was used at great expense to avoid exposure of the details of the case in the High Court in 2013.

This subject is too serious for anyone to make frivolous suggestions about taking it to the Jeremy Kyle show. What is needed is a proper re-examination of the (non) evidence and from that the inevitable reinstatement of Paul with his good name restored.

Paul edwards wrote:

Need Action wrote:

Lets simplify matters and engage with reality.

In the UK if you are accused of wrong doing either in a criminal or civil court the accuser has to provide credible evidence against you. This was not the case for Paul in either 1994 or 1997. Paul has always categorically denied doping.

The offence of doping is determined solely on the scientific testing of urine in athletes. Not by interrogation on TV entertainment shows.

In anti-doping testing the procedures are not especially complex and use simple methods to ensure sample integrity.

The actual testing involves technology that was developed around 1950 and has been refined over the years to be reliable and reproducible if carried out correctly.

In Paul's case the sample was not taken properly , was not stored and transported correctly and was manipulated in various ways in 1994 and 1997. In neither test was a valid sample used.

The testing in 1994 was considered unsatisfactory by both Dr Brown and Professor Makin who objected to the proceedings. A proper analytical report was never provided to Paul or his defence team and has never been accessible. It almost certainly never existed in a credible form.

In 1997 the analytical data from the testing was accessed by Paul and examined by Dr Davis and otheres who declared it invalid as it was full of technical errors and lacked calibration data.

In simple terms in had not been carried out correctly and could not be relied on at all.

The laboratory representatives assured the disciplinary tribunal in 2000 that, although it had not presented the data, it had run calibration data for Paul's test in June 1997 and that it was satisfactory. KCL wrote a letter in 2004 with the title "Paul Edwards"repeating that calibration data was generatedt and that it was used for accurate quantification of the result.

In 2009 after a further 5 years of FOI pressure KCL admitted that it did not generate any calibration data for Paul's test.

Leaving aside all the other embarrassing errors in the analysis this lack of calibration alone invalidated the whole procedure which is why admission of its non existence was resisted to the very end of the FOI saga when the FOI officer finally demanded that it was handed over.

So to summarise there has never been any credible or valid evidence against Paul so he has no case to answer.

For information: An analytical report of a bioanalysis of urine measuring drugs such as testosterone has for decades always be included in any medicines licence application to the European Medicines agency and will often contain data on 20 or more human subjects. It will contain details of sampling, analytical methods and results including calibration. The calibration covers proof that the correct substance/s are being measured and that the measurement is accurate and reproducible. This kind of report is required by WADA nowadays to a great extent as a result of the Modahl, Edwards and Hilton cases.

If UKA or KCL could produce such a valid report on Paul i.e. a simple one subject report it surely would. Such a report proving Paul's guilt would end the fight for justice and would not cost a great deal to write up. However, it is absolutely clear that the data on sampling and testing is nonsense and if written into a formal report would clear Paul rather than convict him and would also expose the authors to scientific and judicial ridicule. This is precisely why it can not be written and why the Statute of Limitations ploy was used at great expense to avoid exposure of the details of the case in the High Court in 2013.

This subject is too serious for anyone to make frivolous suggestions about taking it to the Jeremy Kyle show. What is needed is a proper re-examination of the (non) evidence and from that the inevitable reinstatement of Paul with his good name restored.

This is a independent person