JACOBS CROSS of AYOTTE.
q: 20 or 30 hours reviewing documents.
q: how many on T/E?
q: you believed the t/e results are accurate?
a: no, they show a value around 10, yes.
q: the accuracy of the t/e, the 10 is about as accurate as the irms?
a: i'd say the irms result are the confirmation and consistent ... mumble
q: they do a t/e screen, and a confirm.
q: are they as accurate as the irms?
a: no, they are semi-quantitative?
a: the irms has done a bunch of stuff, while the semi-quant in their lab process is done against 3 standards and only once, so the level of precision around 40% on the t/e makes it semiquantitavie.
q: so the uncertainty is greater?
q: in your review of the documents, did you check for ISL violations?
a: yes, to check science, and procedures.
q: did you identify any violations?
a: i don't call it a violation. I call them differences and different technical interpretatoins, and why the lab has decided to proceed, for very good reasons.
q: what differences did you identify between how LNDD did it and the ISL?
a: they didn't do one of the confirmations in triplicate.
q: any others?
a: did not show formal identification with either mass spectra or ion ration
q: any other differences in their performance vs. the technical docs and ISL.
a: no, they have negative controls and QC for the confirmation, so that was OK for me.
q: diagnostic ions. for a confirmation t/e, they are required to collect 3, correct.
a: minimum is 3 for a compound, and the ration matches the standard.
q: set out in TD 2004 EAS and IDCR?
q: lndd says they did the ion analysis n/z 432.
a: yes the paperwork says.
q; the tech document says compare the 3 ions and compare...
a: you have to look at the T in the sample for ions and compare to ref, and match.
q: when you say relative abundance of the 432 ion to the others...
a: depened what the lab would select.
q: this is to make sure you identify the T and E?
a: for some tests, T or progesteron, that is possible; for E, which is small I have not often seen a lab that can meet the criteria for the E. there's a limit to the identification and quantification.
q: EX 24, USADA ,
[ deceaurriz and mongongu do not look happy on he video feed. ]
JACOBS doesn't have the page, wastes time flipping.
Q: instrument control parameters for screening?
q: pages that follow are chromatograms..
a: when they did the first screen, they had a problem with the dervitization, and couldn't get a good reading. the purpose for the reinjection was run again to get good values.
q: on the scrren they add 3 standards.
q: on the conf they only add one standard.
q; one of the reasons to add standards is to see if the machine will identify substances that might not be there?
a: one is to check salubutimol and gluconoride to check for hydrolosiz.
q: the CG's for reanalysis is USADA 58, results on USADA 57.
q: tests for methylT was identified by ion 401/3 and retention 17.14
q: response 731969.
q: USADA 58, top right chromatogram that says methyl. matches figures?
q: USADA 57, a-d4 gluc, response 104768, single ion at 438.4 retention 12.38.
q: USADA 58, top middle matches that.
a: something at 11.789 and something at 12.381, but I don't think it's a-d4 gluc.
q: so the documentation package misidentifies this?
a: no, it's just the wrong form. it did not identify a-d4. Maybe there was none.
q: so what they identified on USADA 58 is not a-d4?
q: so something other than a-d4 is in this sample at the 438 ion, misidentified.
a: it's not the right retention time. this is software processing numbers automatically, you get numbers.
q: saying that substance identified is a different substance?
q: so saying a substance is identified with a single ion is incorect?
a: i didn't say that.
q: USADA 57 does list a concentraion?
a: that's what happens.
q: the machine misidentified the substance, what is it?
a: no clue.
q: problem identifying with a single ion?
q: if they can identify anything, it should be an internal standard?
a: there's a difference between the report and when the competer says there is a match.
q: so this LDP that says A-d4 is not A-d4?
q: don't know what it is?
q: USADA 84, the injection sequence for A confirmation?
q: starts with vial 1, "itms"
a: guessing a blank reactive, don't know.
q: last, vial 9 is positive qc?
q: purpose to verify...
q: to see if the positive qc verified the machine identified the substance you have to look for the substance?
q: chromatograms are USADA 92 to USADA 96. Are they there?
a: no I can't find the QC1TE.
q: It's not in the DP, right?
q: USADA 272, EX 25, the B sample. the sequence for the b.
q: final injection at vial 12 is positive qc.
q: look at the chromatograms from USADA 275 to 287. Is it there?
q: LDP does not have the chromatogram for the positive QC?
q: ISL page 22, 188.8.131.52, EX 8. given that the positive controls are not present, it would not be possible to evaluate this data?
a: I disagree with you sir.
q: this is not true?
a: they compared to internal standards, and look at conf data, it's close, and other data is consistent.
q: but the reason for the positive control is to be sure you can identify...
a: no. had the lab decide to do something else that is perfectly correct.
q: so a positive control is not used to identify a prohibited substance?
a: no, had I needed the Q/C result, I'd have asked.
q: so it's ok to leave chromatograms from an injection sequence out of a package?
a: if I feel the need, I can ask.
q: so the positive controls are irrelevant?
a: no, it wasn't there, and I didn't feel I needed the need to look at the qc sample.
q: and it's ok not to get it.
a: I'm certain if I had requested, I'd have been given it.
q: but not us.
a: i can't say.
q: on the gcms analysis, the chromatography is important, poor chromotography poor results.
a: you'll have trouble, yes.
MARK G 1351
q: this is a chromatogram from your laboratory.
a: complaint about strictly confidential document being shown.
q: this is from your lab.
a: yes. [ very annoyed ]
q: peak at 16.59 is t peak.
BARNETT: how did you get this. source should be identified.
BRUNET: are you objecting?
q: this is good chromotography.
q: good separation, no co-elution
q: compare to LNDD 27, this is the E-T chromatogram on the B sample?
BARNETT is shown, not happy.
q: this is a blow up from USADA 277, can you see the E peak?
q: this peak is not separated from the peak on the left?
q: Turn to LNDD 29, a blowup of USADA 280, second replica, the E peak, not separated?
q: because of the lack of separation, the quantification is not going to be as accurate?
a: yes, but anyone can see the T peak is 10x higher?
q: you just eyeball it?
q: does the isl say eyeballing it is ok?
BARNETT: I inquired when Geoghegan would be available to testify. What I heard back was that he was not here, he has counsel.
Concern he has been hidden.
BRUNET: we have no power to compell. I would not draw a conclusion Mr. Suh told him not to appear.
BARNETT: We'll think about a different remedy.
SUH: We took a break so he could obtain and retain counsel. He was fired. That would be appropriate. We will give them contact of that counsel, and USADA can contact him.
BARNETT: allegations he admitted publicly, we'll be happy to take it up with his counsel.
September 07: Hearing Award
October 07: Hue's Hearing Appraisal
November 07: Major document Release
January 08: Larry's Curb Your Anticipation
Friday, May 18, 2007
JACOBS CROSS of AYOTTE.