Wednesday, May 16, 2007

Early Wednesday Roundup

Members of Team Landis confer during yesterday's USADA hearings


ESPN's Bonnie DeSimone characterizes Tuesday's Landis hearings as an embarrassment to the proceedings when finding an adequate translator caused delays. It is USADA's responsibility to hire translators for the hearings and there will be more French witessess who will need the services of an interpreter. USADA lawyer Daniel Dunn interviewed Cynthia Mongongu about how she handled the Landis samples:

Dunn went line-by-line through an electronic data file meant to show that testing machinery was operating properly, asking Mongongu for explanations of a number of entries. Landis' lawyers already have challenged the data, saying it was manipulated and alleging that USADA senior managing director Larry Bowers personally tried to keep them from obtaining the logs

Ms. Mongongu is expected to be questioned by the Landis lawyers this morning.

The LA Times Michael Hiltzik portrays Cynthia Mongongu as defending the machines and the testing procedures at the LNDD as she was being questioned yesterday by Daniel J. Dunn a USADA lawyer. After translation problems were resolved, Mongongu said she personally handled six of 10 samples analyzed by the lab. Three of those 10 were blind samples ensuring the trials were random. In yesterday morning's testimony USADA expert witness Dr. Thomas Brenna did some damage to the USADA case when he admitted that some sample analysis could not be reliably reproduced with any precision.

Bicycling's Loren Mooney is covering the Landis hearings and gives us the opinion that the Landis PR campaign that proceeded them has been effective:

Whatever your opinion of Landis’s making his document packet public and the massive PR campaign in the months before this hearing—brilliant, shrill, honest, desperate—there’s no doubt it’s been effective in terms of this hearing.

Additionally she reveals that the will be no extension of the hearing, it will end a week from today, May 23. Mooney also feels that the disputed additional "B" sample testing may be what USDA hopes is a smoking gun in the form of a detectable pattern of doping. Yesterday's afternoon witness Cynthia Mongongu will be cross examined this morning by the Landis lawyers. Of as much interest are the little things that go on in the background of any lengthly proceeding, here is one of many that Mooney has observed:

Landis himself has no opportunity to divert his attention. Typically, he is so energetic that he practically vibrates when forced to sit for any period of time, even a media interview that lasts longer than an hour. But in this hearing he’s sitting utterly still. Though almost constantly chewing gum, he never so much as fidgets, and has not yawned or even appeared distracted once that I’ve seen. He is focused.

SuperTennis tell us that the French Open Tennis Torunament participants will have their drug testing done at the WADA lab in Montreal, Quebec this year rather than at the traditionally used LNDD. Cost is given as the motivation, but the article does note that the LNDD is the disputed lab in the Landis case. SI.Com as well as many other media outlets, have now jumped on this story.

YahooNews posts Eddie Pell's AP report on yesterday's occurrences at the Landis hearings with an emphasis on the delays caused by translation problems, and dense scientific testimony that promises to be the hallmark of this procedure.

The Boulder Daily Camera not only summarizes yesterday's Landis hearing activities but also gives us the highs and lows of yesterday, previews today's proceedings, and provides a possible witness list for Day 3.

The posts the release sent out by Landis spokesperson Michael Henson about the streaming video problems being resolved.

Vin Cache posts the audio podcast of a GQ interview with Floyd Landis.

BikingBis assures us that the Floyd Landis hearing streaming video is working, so watch it.

The Sports Oasis has many theories on what could explain the Landis positive PED results that have led to this week's hearings, but one thing he knows for sure is that for Floyd winning will be like a very difficult climb in the Tour de France.

Rant writes a Wednesday warm up for the Landis hearings scheduled to start in a couple of hours. He goes over yesterday's testimony, and previews what he thinks might be the tack taken by Maurice Suh on cross examination this AM.

Found in Translation discusses the awkward moments in yesterday's interpreter snafu at the Landis hearings.

The Bike Show is back for the summer, and will be talking about the trials of Floyd Landis . Oh and thanks so much for the plug.

Sportnet2 notes that much of yesterday's Landis hearing was indeed lost in translation and that lots of valuable time was wasted after which things went considerably more smoothly

TripleCrankset has been blinded by the science in the Landis hearings thus far, and has not been all that impressed with some of USADA's "experts". Thanks for the plug by the way.

Pommi notes all of the various frustrations that occurred in and around yesterday's Landis hearings. Pommi gives us a bit of an update in the guise of a preview of today's expected action at the Landis hearings.

NashvilleCyclist liked Butch Reynold's advice (found in a Bonnie DeSimone piece) to Floyd Landis that if he is telling the truth to just have faith and stay strong.

It appears that the Daily Peloton Forums are back up and running.


Lynne K said...

DPF is back up, as of 8:30 CDT.

pem said...

In a previous comment somewhere below:

cam said...

oh -- and regarding Pem's question about asking if the witness felt there was any chance Floyd was innocent. isn't that one of the no-no questions unless you know the answer? or is that only considered such in a trial by jury?

My response:

Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

If the witness says firmly that he or she believes Landis doped, then nothing has changed. You would expect that. That is why they are testifying.

However, if the witness hesitates, fumbles, awkwardly replies, or even says there is some doubt, then its smooth sailing.

cam said...

Pem-- thank you! it makes perfect sense now that you explained it. i can be a bit slow at times...

strbuk said...

Thanks Lynne, I'll change the forum posting.


Anonymous said...

I think Mooney hit on something significant. USADA/WADA should have put on a bare bones case that supported their burden of proof and held the rest to attack Landis' defense. This would have left the panel with the last witnesses being the most effective in challenging Landis' positions and freh in their minds.

USADA/WADA bit on the Wiki defense and the egos involved wanted to attack it from the begining. A savvy trial attorney would have ignored any value of publicity and concentrated on the impact on the panel. (Assuming that two need to be convinced of course) This may be an instance where the client made the call and reacted to the muzzle being taken off by barking immediately instead of watching the opposition. Interesting.