Some of the biggest names in sport in the UK are involved in the cover up.
Some of the biggest names in sport in the UK are involved in the cover up.
UKAD staff involved in cover up.
Jonny Jenks wrote:
Nob ed wrote:
I have read on this thread that the drug tester was the husband of the women the worked in the anti doping office along side Veroken.[/quote
What was the name of the drug tester; did he go from being unemployed to head of uk tennis?
No, went to Sport England prior to Tennis; still utterly remarkable.
More significant people involved in the cover up.
Michelle V wrote:
The DCO could not remember what he did with the sample.
It was said to go via DHL but the waybill was never used and is still live.
So it was never delivered by DHL .
UK Sport refused to provide the travel log of the DCO to clear this up.
Why were UK Sport involved in all these coverups?
What were they hiding?
ducky data wrote:
Who will get the sack for the cover up?
Seems things about to hit off
good luck
Why did the now head of women’s soccer ban dealing with the Davis report?
Cover up followed by cover up that involved all players in the wider uk antidoping system.
ducky data wrote:
Why did the now head of women’s soccer ban dealing with the Davis report?
Cover up followed by cover up that involved all players in the wider uk antidoping system.
And I think she is a “Dame”.
Just been told she sits in Parliament and is a Baroness.
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 is worth a close reading.
ducky data 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.
This is worth a close reading.
No contemporaneous calibration work up!
Cowen, head of lab,had in peer reviewed papers said this is a pre requisite for valid results.
So why were they not done and why lies to say they had?
To avoid admiring that the data did not exist they said that they would not provide the data as it would be potentially injurious to Edwards health.
The pulled the H and S card.
They had always provided this data in other cases.
Eventually the DPA Commission told them to provide it.
Then, oh dear, they had to admit they lied and the data never existed.
Admitting, not admiring.
So the data they used to convict him never existed.
Is perversion of the course of justice a criminal offence?
How did they get away with mis leading Parliament.
But then the head of doping control was removed nor long afterwards and still no reason why.
And they did analyse over fifty time and did not have enough urine to do this
So where did the urine come from
Could not have been Edwards as he did not give that volume of urine.
Leading expert Dr Davis said that the water blank was contaminated.
But they his this from the panel.
They also refused to provide the evidence to support the chain of custody even though it was specifically asked for.
They did not just ignore the request the stated in writing their refusal.
Wada are investigating UKAD over cycling test problems.
These are the same people who were part of hiding the evidence in the Edwards case.
Great interview with Steve Cram - says Jakob has no chance of WRs this year
I’m a D2 female runner. Our coach explicitly told us not to visit LetsRun forums.
Guys between age of 45 and 55 do you think about death or does it seem far away
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion
adizero Road to Records with Yomif Kejelcha, Agnes Ngetich, Hobbs Kessler & many more is Saturday