Wednesday, May 16, 2007

For the Record

It looks like the You3/Duckstrap argument is indeed central to the case. Gentleman, take a bow.

The hearing blew up over absence of discovery material. Suh got the witness to say it was important, and USADA is claiming Landis stipulated they "had all the need" in some fashion.
The Panel is going to think about it. If the fix is in, they'll decide that Landis did agree he had had all he needs.

The items in question are the mass spectrum files, so identify the contents of the peaks in enough detail one can decide if there is interference in the chromatogaphic peak.


Anonymous said...

What is ducky's agrguement? can you link us to the past.

Bring some accountablitiy to T3 and the USADA.

Anonymous said...

Please elaborate on what missing discovery triggered the blow up. I was back reviewing posts and replies from earlier in the day and commented on lack of enforcement of ordered discovery. This is a real test of where this is going and if it's a railroad with a big engine or a handcar that rquires individual effort to move.

duckstrap said...

The problems are fairly well explorted in this thread (

I refer to one of my own posts in DPF, but you3 started us down this road. The overall issue here is the lack of verification that there was no chromatographic interference in the Landis assays. I have to also acknowledge that you3 was ahead of me in understanding the need for the type of diagram they are currently asking for. It arises because the CO2 with C13 arrives chromatographically slightly ahead of the C02 with the normal C12. If there is an extra inflection point in those graphs, that is evidence of interference. This is what the witness yesterday was pointing to in Suh's cross examination. Here, these diagrams appear to be missing. Also missing, as yet are the mass spectra for the peaks of interest in the GCMS chromatograms. I assume the Landis team will address that later.