gus sett wrote:
Why did they deny Edwards the evidence on the basis that it would be a breach of Health and Safety regulations.
This was there official reason and in writing.
What were they hiding?
gus sett wrote:
Why did they deny Edwards the evidence on the basis that it would be a breach of Health and Safety regulations.
This was there official reason and in writing.
What were they hiding?
gus sett wrote:
gus sett wrote:
Why did they deny Edwards the evidence on the basis that it would be a breach of Health and Safety regulations.
This was there official reason and in writing.
What were they hiding?
That the test would pass no scientific investigation.
davies report wrote:
gus sett wrote:
What were they hiding?
That the test would pass no scientific investigation.
Read the Davis report: it is devastating.
No wonder UKSport gave instructions to staff to ignore it.
davies report wrote:
davies report wrote:
That the test would pass no scientific investigation.
Read the Davis report: it is devastating.
No wonder UKSport gave instructions to staff to ignore it.
UKSport said that the Davis report had nothing new after they held some form of desk top meeting with no notes or any record of the meeting.
They had not one person on there staff with the remotest idea about mass spectrometry yet they came to that conclusion.
Davis provided statements from a series of independent experts in the field if mass spectrometry to point to the new, previously hidden, evidence and how in any of their work would have caused the results to be binned.
davies report wrote:
davies report wrote:
Read the Davis report: it is devastating.
No wonder UKSport gave instructions to staff to ignore it.
UKSport said that the Davis report had nothing new after they held some form of desk top meeting with no notes or any record of the meeting.
They had not one person on there staff with the remotest idea about mass spectrometry yet they came to that conclusion.
Davis provided statements from a series of independent experts in the field if mass spectrometry to point to the new, previously hidden, evidence and how in any of their work would have caused the results to be binned.
Appalling science and appalling cover up when found out.
davies report wrote:
davies report wrote:
UKSport said that the Davis report had nothing new after they held some form of desk top meeting with no notes or any record of the meeting.
They had not one person on there staff with the remotest idea about mass spectrometry yet they came to that conclusion.
Davis provided statements from a series of independent experts in the field if mass spectrometry to point to the new, previously hidden, evidence and how in any of their work would have caused the results to be binned.
Appalling science and appalling cover up when found out.
Should all the appropriate journals be informed of these coverups?
All his previous publications could be removed.
Contamination from the water blank and covered up!
davies report wrote:
Contamination from the water blank and covered up!
Was that why they refused to give Edwards the data saying it was a breach of health and safety to do so.
Why did they refuse to provide the evidence they had about the missing days in the chain of custody.
Again; what were the hiding.
That was a question the Metropolitan Police asked about.
davies report wrote:
Why did they refuse to provide the evidence they had about the missing days in the chain of custody.
Again; what were the hiding.
That was a question the Metropolitan Police asked about.
It was a Sgt Alexander from Scotland Yard who was involved but drew a blank when DHL
With all the various people being involved
davies report wrote:
davies report wrote:
Why did they refuse to provide the evidence they had about the missing days in the chain of custody.
Again; what were the hiding.
That was a question the Metropolitan Police asked about.
It was a Sgt Alexander from Scotland Yard who was involved but drew a blank when DHL
With all the various people being involved
Does this mean they have conspired to pervert the course of justice; my lord.
davies report wrote:
davies report wrote:
It was a Sgt Alexander from Scotland Yard who was involved but drew a blank when DHL
With all the various people being involved
Does this mean they have conspired to pervert the course of justice; my lord.
Highly likely is what I have been told.
Metropolitan Police involved again?
How does a scientist get the their work published when they are in breach of ISO 17025 and such is the basis of their laboratory’s accreditation?
No matter how clear the counter science is wada gang up to justify their existence
And the Houlihan case is more evidence that the system is not fit for purpose
davies report wrote:
And the Houlihan case is more evidence that the system is not fit for purpose
get a life dude, jesus
karma is real wrote:
davies report wrote:
And the Houlihan case is more evidence that the system is not fit for purpose
get a life dude, jesus
Strict liability and all know that meat is allowed to be contaminated . I rest my case with you.
And in the Edwards case they used someone else’s urine.
davies report wrote:
karma is real wrote:
get a life dude, jesus
Strict liability and all know that meat is allowed to be contaminated . I rest my case with you.
And in the Edwards case they used someone else’s urine.
Yes they did the test over 50 times until a positive suddenly appeared. 50 times meant they had to have extra urine; whos was this .
Once the drug testing regime starts working then everything is against the athlete.
Houlihan and Edwards, both the same.
Burden of proof and poor science all stacked against the athlete.
In the case of Edwards ; new evidence of contamination of the water blanks with mis info about calibration curves , but no chance of case being re opened.