Friday, May 18, 2007

Hearing - Friday Buisson

BRUNET: would like to consider Buisson now and defer Ayotte, because Buisson has a plane to catch.

All agree.


q: employment?
a: Dr. in analytic chemistry, specialization in isotopic analysis.


q: start at lndd.
a: Nov 2005.

q: before?
a: working at a lab doing analysis of residuals of food contamination

q: did you do gc irms testing.
a: yes, absolutely.

q: how many years before lndd doing irms?
a: 3 years.

q: which instrument at previous lab?
a: isoprime micromass.

q: which software on it?
a: started with os2 s/w, and then changed to the masslynx.

q: when did you change over at the other lab?
a: about 6 months after I started.

q: if you started at lndd in 2005, 3 years would be 2002, and six months, went to masslynx?
a: yes.

q: about march 2003?
a: about.

q: are you the one that decided to upgrade?
a: no.

q: was it the lab director?
a: yes, within the framework of a particular project.

q: project?
a: euro project to establish a reference methodology for isotopic analysis.

q: so your lab upgraded?
a: it wasn't exactly for that project. it was part of a project to try to improve the instrument performance.

q: to improve the performance, the old lab upgraded to masslynx in about march 2003?
a: at the time micromass was part of the project, so there were working in collaboration with us, so they setup the new software.

q: to improve the accuracy of the instrument?
a: not to improve the accuracy, it was to be able to have the latest version.

q: what was the value of the latest version?
a: don't understand.

q: why the new over the os2 software?
a: because the micromass company worked with masslynx in the project, so to be more compatible.

[ translation woes on homogogize, leading to many suggestions, and SUH turning to audience, "anybody else?" laughter.

a: I was in the process of completing my doctorate.

q: job title at lndd, nov 2005.
a: recruited to head the r&d in chemistry

q: did you supervise then?
a: yes, i did have someone responsible for that section and and an analyst.

q: who?
a: when I arrived, head of irms was Caroline Bastian, and the analyst was Mongongu.

q: Mongogu worked under your direction?
a: yes.

q: were you responsible for training LNDD personnel on the IRMS process?
a: no, they'd already been trained.

q: after?
a: we would have discussions about the right way to proceed... we worked together.

q: did you do any of the training of the people who worked underneath you?
a: training them on the masslynx?

q: anything to do with irms.
a: the masslynx, yes, since I had experience and was able to show them.

q: what kinds of things could you show them about the masslynx.
a: i dn't remember exactly. If there were questions, I was there to answer.

q: anything else you trained the irms techs on aside from masslynx?
a: I did supervise Frelat's training.

q: did you do the training, or supervise?
a: Mongongu who was operating, and I would supervise.

q: did you directly train Frelat?
a: well to the extent that I would give her advice if she had questions.

q: anything other than answer questions?
a: not that i remember.

q: it was Mongongu who trained Frelat.
a: yes, she was the head of that section.

q: as the head of the section did you do any training of Mongongu

DUNN objections...
SUH walking objection.

q: you are in charge of things including irms.
a: yes.

q: did you do any training of Mongongu of how to perform or analyze or conduct irms?
a: no, she was there before me.

q: because she was there before you, you felt no need to do training?
a: she was already performing analysis.

q: did you train Mongongu on how to recharge the liner of either isoprime instrument at lndd?
a: no. because she was already there and had it before I arrived.

q: did you train Frelat regarding her understanding that 1.5 or 1.6 was a significant difference in delta delta values?
a: no.

q: did you Mongongu or Frelat on the procedure related to performing the irms testing in order from beginning to end.
a: not for cynthia, she was there; for claire, I got her up to speed about the procedures to be followed.

q: what did you teack frelat?
a: we have SOP

q: you trained her on the SOPs?
a: I showed her.

q: you simply showed her?
a: yes, with cynthia she practiced.

q: show you showed her the SOP, and cynthia explained how it works.
a; show as I expleind.

q: did you show of traing either on how to conduct manual adjustments to peak integration or background subtraction?
a: the same answer, for cyntia no; for claire really more answering her questions.

q; where did you learn to do manual adjustments for peak and background?
a: in the lab where I was before.

q: you understnad the auto background is an algorithm.
a: the calculation of the noise, yes.

q: how would you know more accurately than the computer to remove background?
a: you don't take it out background. you reposition it correctly?

q: why do you adjust it manually?
a: when you have data, you look at the 2/1 trace and then the s/w places references points that are supposed to be there, the s/w does that, and we need to make sure the reference points are not on a peak area because a peak is by definition is not background noise. So the point of references picked by the s/w are positioned correctly with regard to the background. The representation of the noise is done with a line passing through the points of reference. We need to ensure the line corresponds eactly with the baseline of the chromatogram. It's rare that it happens by itself with the OS2 software.

q: it's rare that the os/2 sw does this by itself.
a: ??


a: often badly placed by os/2 software

q: because of the chromatography and the noise in the data during the analysis?
a: yes.

q: when you met with Dr. Davis, in april 2007, did you have a discussion with him about linearity and linearity of the isoprome?
a: yes.

q: did you tell him you were having problem in certain ranges?
a: i din't remember having said that, no. I do remember discussion linearity with him, but not problems with him.

q: i'm talking about the isoprime2
a: yes.

q: what discussion did you have with him about the isoprime2 linearity?
a: he asked us if he could have it

q: your response?
a: we'd done it the day before.

q: do you remember anything else about those discussions?
a: no, except that he wanted us to redo it the same day.

q: do you remember either being part of a conversation or telling or being present when said, that no manual reprocessing occurs in conjunction with the use of the isoprime2 instrument?
a: i don't remember, no recollection.

Suh retreates to table for conference with Scott and Jacobs.




Anonymous said...

From the text of Ayotte's Cross II, it looked like Suh really flustered her and made her admit she 1. doesnt know how LNDD does their tests contrary to her testimony yesterday and 2. is unwilling to be critical of LNDD because she says her Montreal lab does the same thing. It looked like a win for the Landis team. Is that accurate?

brian said...

is this a defense witness?

bill hue said...

I think your impressions are one way to see it. the other way, for those who choose so, is that everthing everywhere in every WADA lab is fine. when there are mistakes, they find them and fix them and all is well with the world.

Anonymous said...

Maurice Suh is posturing. He is a toothless sheep dog.

Roid is GUILTY of:
1) doping
2) lying
3) witness tampering (felony)
4) no Nike enodrsement
5) no Cancer sob story
6) idiotic fans base

I expect Howard Jacobs to resign after the lunch break.

Lance Armstrong must be on heavy Prozac with a Lithium ceiling.

Greg Lemond sucker punched these LIVE WRONG clowns and all Roid Landis suporters too.

Renewal rates will began a decline now for Mr Cancer Doping Sales Community.

It is over for Roid Landis. 3:1 for a LIFETIME BAN.

Anonymous said...

Hi, Dick. Bored?

Chaz said...

This situation is exactly what scared me to death when I was tested randomly as part of my military career. There is no way you can defend yourself against a mistake in the lab. Even if you went to an independant lab and were tested at exactly the same time, you wouldn't be able to meet the requirements for chain of custody etc.

Why is it that everyone assumes that labs never make mistakes, even when evidence has shown that they have?

Anonymous said...

what happened to the stream of commentary?

SUH is standing and then?

I have refreshed, but no updates are appearing? What is the best way to keep the text streaming and follow the updates?

TK said...

It is over for Roid Landis. 3:1 for a LIFETIME BAN.

Thanks for the bookmaking, Mr. Pound.

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.

Brian said...

Looks like Suh just laid a trap. There is no other reason that he would leave her alone after claiming that she wasn't part of that conversation. I bet they have someone that says she was there.

Anonymous said...

Suh may have laid a trap, but if he truly was calling her as a direct witness he couldn't cross examine her, so he had to let her denial stand without challenge.

Anonymous said...

Looks like the various posts are done without any step backward.
I have a question, what would be the benefit of a lab to declare FL positive?
On the other hand what are the consequences of FL to be declared positive?

Anonymous said...

What's today's password? The one posted on isn't correct. C'mon, now, what is it?

Thinnmann said...

as posted at

Username: LandisF2
Password: Q5P9ecux

Worked for me, in MSIE, not Firefox, but can't connect because maximum user load has been reached.

Anonymous said...

Drug cheats are like OJ Simpson murders.

In fact, OJ Simpson was a steroid abuser from USC and the NFL.

Roid Floid cracked up much like OJ did, sans a bloody glove.

Even unemployed Tyler Hamilton agrees, this sporting fraud is over.


Dick Pound is laughing now.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 12:26

Did you come over here from the MSNBC cycling board? Please go back. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Anon 11:52
In most U.S. courts you can call a witness and have them identified as a "hostile witness" - effectively one that your opposition could call but did not want to - then you can treat them as if they were the other side's witness: you can usually ask leading questions and call a rebuttal witness to challenge what they say. it's the latter that people are suggesting is the trap that has been set. On the other hand Suh may just have wanted to establish how weak the training and oversight was.