‘I won’t give up fight for justice’

It is 12 years since the former international Olympic and Commonwealth Games athlete was given a life ban for steroid use.

Shot-putter Mr Edwards has always protested his innocence - and he is determined to keep on fighting to get his case reopened.

Mr Edwards, of Woolford Way, Winklebury, Basingstoke, believes he is being denied justice by sport officials who will not look at fresh evidence.

He claims 600 pages of evidence were deliberately kept from him and only uncovered through use of Data Protection legislation and a visit with lawyers to the laboratory that tested him.

A former British number one for eight years, the 47-year-old said he will carry on fighting to clear his name even though, at the end of last year, he was told there are virtually no avenues left for him to explore.

He said: "It's wrong. This has been dragging on for 12 years and they think they can forget me. But I'm not giving up, this has been going on for too many years."

Mr Edwards was banned for taking anabolic steroids in 1994 and flew home in disgrace from the Commonwealth Games in Canada on the same aircraft as the runner Diane Modahl.

But while Ms Modahl was cleared of doping on appeal in 1995, Mr Edwards, a former Commonwealth bronze medallist, received a four-year ban.

He then became the first British athlete to receive a life ban when he failed a testosterone test during legal proceedings to overturn his four-year penalty in 1998.

The former national champion, who works in cargo-handling at Heathrow airport, has been backed by Basingstoke MP Maria Miller in his call for the sport's governing body - the International Association of Athletics Federations - to reopen his case.

It took a year for the Monaco-based IAAF to respond to the call for a review and when they did last November, they admitted there are no means by which cases such as Mr Edwards' can be reviewed when there is potentially fresh evidence.

The new evidence was produced by dope-testing expert Dr Simon Davis, who found it in the Drug Control Centre (DCC) laboratory at King's College London that tested the urine samples which incriminated Mr Edwards.

Dr Davis - a mass spectometrist who designs dope-testing machines - visited the laboratory with two lawyers following the submission of a Data Protection Act request.

He said the laboratory had previously refused to disclose evidence on the basis that it would require a "disproportionate effort" to photocopy it.

Dr Davis has been involved in other cases, such as that of Olympic sprint medallist Merlene Ottey, who was banned for nandrolone use and has since returned to the sport.

He has been involved in Mr Edwards' case for about six years and pointed to the findings of a UK Athletics disciplinary committee investigating a ban on the athlete Mark Hylton in 2000, which criticised the DCC's handling of samples and the withholding of information.

He said: "Paul has been treated horrendously. I reviewed the data and found a series of errors and problems."

Dr Davis alleged that there are grounds to believe the DCC is still withholding information about Mr Edwards' case in contravention of the Data Protection Act.

After compiling his own report, he asked for it to be reviewed by the national monitoring body, UK Sport, and gained the backing of seven international scientists in the field, who wrote letters saying there should be a review.

But only after a Data Protection request was submitted about a year ago did it emerge that a proper review had not taken place.

Dr Davis said: "Someone with no qualifications in science had decided there was nothing there of any significance."

He said the new evidence showed there had not been enough urine in the sample to conduct the number of analyses the laboratory claimed in the original test, which resulted in Mr Edwards' ban. His report also claims that one urine sample was opened with a hacksaw.

Among the other claims he makes is one that the lab had also refused to release information proving that the testing machine had been calibrated properly.

Dr Davis said seven other experts he called in to look at the evidence all wrote saying there should be a review.

When The Gazette asked UK Sport whether a review had been conducted, Russell Langley, head of press for Drug-Free Sport for the organisation, said one had been conducted by members of the Drug-Free Sport team, but it was found the report contained nothing new.

He later admitted no formal review of the fresh evidence in the Edwards case had been undertaken "as it is simply not for us to review".

He said UK Athletics or the IAAF could reopen the case, but had chosen not to and, therefore, "we consider the case to be closed".

Mr Langley added that all the evidence from the tests had been provided to Mr Edwards and his team in accordance with World Anti-Doping Agency regulations.

Liz Burchall, a press spokeswoman for UK Athletics, said the organisation could not comment on the Edwards case because of concerns about confidentiality.

A request from The Gazette for a comment from the IAAF failed to elicit any response.

However, last November, more than a year after Mrs Miller wrote to the IAAF asking them to respond, she received a letter from Pierre Weiss, the General Secretary of the IAAF.

It said: "Unfortunately, there is no provision under IAAF rules which allows for the reopening of closed cases, even where there is the potential for new evidence."

It added: "As Mr Edwards availed himself of the UK Athletics Appeals process, that decision constituted a final and binding decision and, therefore, his case is closed."

Mrs Miller said: "The most disturbing aspect is that there is considerable new evidence suggesting that Paul's case needs to be reviewed. But there is no process for reopening cases where there is fresh evidence.

"I'm not qualified to know whether the new evidence is enough to change the ruling. But Paul lost the opportunity to take part in a sport he was very good at."

Mrs Miller has also written to Lord Coe, the UK representative on the IAAF about Mr Edwards' case, asking him to look at the rules. But his office told The Gazette that he had only passed on her concerns to the IAAF.

Mrs Miller also sent the report and the scientists' letters to Minister for Sport Richard Caborn - but he declined to be involved in the case. Mrs Miller then asked a question in the House of Commons and sought a meeting with Mr Caborn.

In November last year, Mr Caborn wrote to Mrs Miller: "I do not have the power to intervene in individual doping cases and I do not have anything further to add."

In 2002, the-then Basingstoke MP Andrew Hunter - a long-time supporter of Mr Edwards' fight - raised his case in the House of Commons and was similarly rebuffed.

A spokesman for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport told The Gazette last week there was nothing further to add to what Mr Caborn had already said.

Mrs Miller said: "Nobody wants to see people using illegal substances participating in athletics and it is not for me to judge if someone has infringed the rules, but obviously mistakes can be made.

"We have been passed from pillar to post. It's incredibly complicated. The processes are out-of-date and in need of fundamental review and there is no accountability. That's what I'm asking the Government to look at.

"This is important as we move forward to being a nation hosting the Olympic Games. I think the Government is abdicating responsibility."

Mr Hunter said: "An expert who saw the evidence said it is quite ridiculous that Paul has been banned. There were so many inaccuracies."

He added taxpayers' money was being used to pay for the anti-doping system and therefore the Government should be involved.

Mr Edwards said: "This means a tremendous amount to me because I have had to go through 12 or 13 years of suffering for something I have not done.

"I could have gone to four Olympic Games instead of two.

"If I had the money I would have gone to the High Court and then I would never have been banned. To have my name cleared would be a great burden off my shoulders."

Mr Edwards, who believes Mr Caborn should take up the case, added: "I cannot force the minister to do things. He has got to reopen this case and look at it properly."

• Read the views of the editor of the Basingstoke Gazette on this matter in his weekly blog here