Monday, May 21, 2007

Hearing - Mon Meier-Augenstein summary

Other than having wasted time over procedural complaints, eventually settlerd, and being a bit hard for laymen to follow, Herr Doktor appeared to be pushing the bunny out of the hat.

What I think I heard was:

  • You need more then the 44/45 or 2/1 traces alone for proper identification, and we don't have them all;
  • That aside, the retention times aren't anything near the WADA spec for matching the GCMS and the IRMS, so he really doesn't know what he's looking at.
  • It's easy for unclean peaks to have problems with background subtraction nibbling into true data;
  • Overlapping peaks often lead to skews between first and second peaks in reports that do not match the truth.
  • Lost peaks can affect the integration and isotope results.
  • Wandering internal standard values suggest something odd is going on that has not been diagnosed.
  • There is literature including the newly admitted Cologne study that says the delta-delta values should always be within -2 units.
What this seems to imply is that
  • The peak identification isn't up to WADA spec, providing a legally triggering ISL violation.
  • The overlapping peaks probably account for some variation in delta values that is not correct.
  • The ratio variance between the samples as inferred from the other studies, includig cologne, stronly suggest there is some other substance included in the measurements.
  • This other substance might account for the big 5a swings.
The ISL violation in the peak identification is legally important, because it lets Landis bring in the other scientific arguments that would otherwise be disallowed. It means that USADA must convince that the failure to properly identify peaks doesn't matter to the results, and rebut convincingly these other arguments.

It may not be hopping around, but there may be rabbit ears poking out.

What is missing is a systemic explanation that accounts for all the other results, because all of the examples given were cited from the S17 A and B samples.

We note that Suh successfully invoked the "Young Gambit", getting things admitted that might not ordinarily, by citing USADA's previous use of the "expedited nature" of arbitration.


Anonymous said...

Good, it sounds like productive day for the defense. As goofy as some of the prople around landis are, I still hope he's found clean.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone know what substance or substances could have been added to the samples to produce these results? Are there any chemicals you could inject into either the machine or the test sample that would have a similar "fingerprint"?????

Chaz said...

If nothing else, this sure proves that the quality of the work at LNDD is very substandard!

Anonymous said...

I think the Bunny's tail is starting to show, not its ears!

The Panel is going to have a tough call to make Party Line or Do the Right Things. It is ashame that it took a Tour De France Winner to expose the so call Wizard(s) behind the curtin.

Without the case going public we can only imagine how many other clean riders might have been exposed to bad certified lab practices.


Ken at Global View said...

Dr. Meier-Augstein is a well written Herr. According to the Queen's University website in Belfast, he has written a few highlyt relevant books including on on IRMS in 2003. I certainly hope this is the rabbit so sorely sought after.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Goldberg on Friday stated that by using only one ion in all of the LNDD GC analysis that one ion is insufficient. Ion 432 (prominently displayed at the top of all the graphs) could be found in 10 different compounds. Some steriods. Some NOT for the concentration of 90-100%. There are more compounds if the concentration is different that 90-100%. Therefore the identification part of the GC has not been conclusive from LNDD data. He then showed a UCLA GC with three ions (which is the WADA/ISL standard) for the chemical "Fingerprint". The one UCLA and the one Montreal were beautiful graphs because of the three ions acquired and analyzed thus forming well defined peaks. If the GC is bad the IRMS is bad. Thats what the good doctor is saying today. Its a one-two punch.

Poet's Chemistry

Anonymous said...

Or clean riders that don't have the money to afford the defense.

Anonymous said...


I think I can see cute bunny eyes. El-ahrairah anyone? (Watership Down reference)


Chaz said...

Bill - Does the panel have the authority to order that the samples be retested at an alternate lab? Provided there is enough sample left to test, this would seem to be a possible solution that might really get to the truth, provided that the samples have not been contaminated or deliberately spiked. I guess that these are the issues depend on the ruling on CoC issues.

Timm said...

Could this be why the B's had to be tested? They Knew the Stage 17 tests were flawed, so had to save their case by getting more evidence (gathered under USADA supervision if I remember correctly). I fear this will not matter though as the trains always run on time.

Anonymous said...

Samples are all used up...this was one of Landis' problems with the retesting in the first place.

bill hue said...


By a 2-1 vote, they have determined they can't stop the owner's of the urine (Floyd doesn't own it) from testing it, as long as their expert (from the rome WADA lab) is there and Landis reps have whatever right their attendance at "B" sample testing is to be there too. so the log answer is no. although the concept is intriguing.

See the athlete can't get any portion of his urine back under the WADA code to test it himself.

Anonymous said...

You caught it. And the testimony helps explain why they used LNDD. The reliable way to generate confirming results was to use the same lab - one that would repeat the same poor practices, but be protected by the WADA "good neighbor" rule. Would have been a difficult position for USADA/WADA if they had sent stuff to Montreal, whose analytical practices and standards appear to be much higher. USADA/WADA would not be able to harmonize the results. This also explains why they would not split the B's and have them tested at two labs. They could not risk different results/data out of the two labs.