Friday, May 18, 2007

Hearing - Fri Ayotte Cross III


q: 20 or 30 hours reviewing documents.
a: yes.

q: how many on T/E?
a: 5-10.

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.
a: yes.

q: are they as accurate as the irms?
a: no, they are semi-quantitative?

q: difference?
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?
a: yes.

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?
a: yes.

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?
a: yes.

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.
a: yes.

q: on the conf they only add one standard.
a: yes.

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.
a: yes.

q: tests for methylT was identified by ion 401/3 and retention 17.14
a: yes.

q: response 731969.
a: yes.

q: USADA 58, top right chromatogram that says methyl. matches figures?
a: yes.

q: USADA 57, a-d4 gluc, response 104768, single ion at 438.4 retention 12.38.
a: yes.

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?
a: no.

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?
a: no.

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?
a: ???

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?
a: yes.

q: don't know what it is?
a: nope.

q: USADA 84, the injection sequence for A confirmation?
a: yes.

q: starts with vial 1, "itms"
a: guessing a blank reactive, don't know.

q: last, vial 9 is positive qc?
a: yes.

q: purpose to verify...
a: yes.

q: to see if the positive qc verified the machine identified the substance you have to look for the substance?
a: yes.

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?
a: no.

q: USADA 272, EX 25, the B sample. the sequence for the b.
a: yes.

q: final injection at vial 12 is positive qc.
a: yes.

q: look at the chromatograms from USADA 275 to 287. Is it there?
a: nope.

q: LDP does not have the chromatogram for the positive QC?
a: nope.

q: ISL page 22,, 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.
a: yes.

q: good separation, no co-elution
a: yes.

q: compare to LNDD 27, this is the E-T chromatogram on the B sample?
a: yes.

BARNETT is shown, not happy.

Ayotte looking.

q: this is a blow up from USADA 277, can you see the E peak?
a: yes.

q: this peak is not separated from the peak on the left?
a: yes.

q: Turn to LNDD 29, a blowup of USADA 280, second replica, the E peak, not separated?
a: yes.

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?
a: yes.

q: does the isl say eyeballing it is ok?
a: no.



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.



Anonymous said...

Can someone please explain why there are time breaks in the "streaming" of the text?

The last update I have is JACOBS doesn't have the page, wastes time flipping.

20 minutes ago...

Anonymous said...

Is is NOT streaming text. Think of it as batches of text.

Anonymous said...

from the man behind the curtin...

"bill hue said...
Anon 12:23
I've noticed that due to heavy use, our updates may be taking longer than earlier. the system and we are taxed.
TBV is doing a real time summary and he refreshes at pauses to post. sometimes, the convienient spot takes awhile to get to.
hang in there, we are committed to continuing this proceedur.
bill "

Anonymous said...

Hey look - here comes the monkey again! Look at that thing dance. I wonder how I can get a dancing monkey? Oh wait, maybe I better get finished driving this railroad first.

Anonymous said...


USADA still wants to put Will on the stand. Shouldn't the panel rule on admitting Lemond's testimony? And they do strike it, do you still think USADA would call Will? They will then have no official testimony to reference.

Anonymous said...

You are all doing a great job, Thanks!

Anonymous said...

The pony show is over.

Roid Landis crashed hard.

It's over.

Never rely on doper apologists to save your sorry arse.


Laura Challoner, DVM said...

Anon 12:34
If you are being sarcastic, God forbid you get in the way of the train. Science is God?

Anon 12:39,
Your mom is calling you. She has some tomato soup ready, your favorite!

anon 12:36
Still no word on the ruling. Will has counsel and the Panel has no power to make nonparties appear. There is no chance that Will will testify.

Anonymous said...

As soon as they felt like Suh was getting somewhere, they changed the subject to Geohogan again. Look! Over there!

Dance, monkey, dance!


Anonymous said...

Regardless of whether Landis actually doped or not, this arbitration (and part circus)and the defense are clearly establishing that this lab makes mistakes, is sloppy, and the system needs revised to provide greater oversight and protections for athletes.

Anonymous said...

And that Roid Landis and his E-postal program is doped to the gills.

Soon this Roid defense charade will end and the apologists can run after Oscar Peirero's defense.

I predict that Brad Wiggins will be proclaimed the winner of the 2006 hGH & T TDF. Assuming he NEVER gave up any urine, that is.

Anonymous said...

Dick, it's lunchtime already! Take a break!

Anonymous said...

BARNETT: We'll think about a different remedy.

HAHAHA OOoohh!! SO cryptic!

It's almost like they were sitting through all of Ayotte's testimony just stewing over Will.


Anonymous said...

Bill, I posted at 12:34. My sarcasm is directed at USADA and the panel. I can't imagine how difficult things are there. I definitely wouldn't want to be in the way of that train, and don't think the process is fair in the least. I commend Floyd for opening this up so we can all see how the system is designed to screw the athlete regardless of whether or not the lab made a mistake. Attorney's like Barnett are the reason lawyer jokes exist.

Anonymous said...

He tried smuggling his wife into the US He cheated in cycling for years and lied about it and even has a self indulgent bio on his website where he still extolls his rededication to training as the reasoning for better results in 2001. How can you believe this guy now and know for sure his stories and testimony isn't fabricated with this blatant past history of lying an cheating? And DOES ANY really think it's a coincidence that his doping case was signed yesterday?

Anonymous said...

I found the testimony that he didn't know what drugs he was taking most of the time interesting. What made this testimony so interesting was that he later went on to testify that he was very clear that the "ONLY" performance enhancing drug he took for recovery was Testosterone. How can he state this with such certainty if he doesn't know what he's taking most of the time???? What a joke!!! but well scripted. Also bear in mind this guy has a reputation for unethical and illegal behavior. He tried smuggling his wife into the US He cheated in cycling for years and lied about it and even has a self indulgent bio on his website where he still extolls his rededication to training as the reasoning for better results in 2001. How can you believe this guy now and know for sure his stories and testimony isn't fabricated with this blatant past history of lying an cheating? And DOES ANY really think it's a coincidence that his doping case was signed yesterday?