An emailer sends:
Monday morning will be very interesting.So far we have had WADA experts patting each other on the back but they are not experts in Mass Spec.Bit like the engineers on F1,they get the info from the onboard telemetry but have very little experience in the theory behind the machines that send them the data.
Hidden within the ISL is a ref to ISO 17025,not one on the prosecution side has made any real ref to this.Ayotte said that ISL was for reporting harmonisation and individual labs have responsibility for their owm methods and thus nothing to do with WADA.She is wrong,WADA refers to ISO 17025 and thus the labs do have an external standard to comply with and this is set out by ISL.
Why have the prosecution got no expert on Mass specs;is it because they cannot find anyone to justify the methods used at LNND.Afterall they knew full well what Landis was going to throw at them.
It is not just Landis that is one trial but the WADA procedures.Will the panel have the guts to clear Landis whilst at the same time condeming WADA labs and indeed WADA for not policing them correctly.
Well, Brenna is offered as their expert, and he's being cited by the Landis expert, so they aren't that uncovered. On the other hand, the Landis expert appears to be demonstrating that Brenna gave LNDD a very cursory review before blessing. I'd expect to see Brenna back in Rebuttal of the Landis experts.