Monday, May 14, 2007

Hearing - Monday Signoff

Here's what seems to be happening to me.

  • Landis is trying to contest the science of the test execution as violations of the ISL.
  • Landis is not claiming natural origin.
  • USADA is trying to sell a single metabolite standard, based on the 5a's that are -6 on the S17, and -4 and -5 in the alternate B samples.
  • USADA seems to be working up a theory that he was doping multiple times with multiple sources, sometimes injecting, sometimes gel, sometimes patches to account for funny looking numbers.
  • USADA is trying to repudiate the differing graph directions.
  • Brenna is arguing linearity and calibration isn't that important to IRMS.
  • The T/E isn't getting much play, it all seems to be about the IRMS CIR.


  • We'll conclude Brenna's cross and redirect;
  • We'll get two witnesses from LNDD, Cynthia Mongongu and Claire Frelat, both analytical chemists.
  • We may get Christiane Ayotte, director of the Montreal Laboratory.
We are offerered as possible later witnesses from USADA:
  • Aguilera
  • Hans Geyer, of the Germans Sports University, Cologne
  • Wilhelm Schanzer, ditto;
  • Don Catlin, UCLA
  • Ray Kazlauskas, Australian sports Drug Testing Laboratory
  • Janine Jumeau, development of the Isochrom software.
  • Jacques DeCeaurriz of LNDD;
  • Esther Cerpolini of LNDD;
  • Ruddy Barlanghe of LNDD;
  • Agnes Gaillard, LNDD;
  • more LNDD folks;
  • Phillipe Dautry, AFLD
  • Greg LeMond
  • Joseph Papp (cyclist, not dead impressario)
  • Floyd Landis
USADA's rebuttal witnesses:
  • Larry Bowers, USADA
  • Richard Auchus, UT Medical Center, Dallas
  • Richard Clark, GlaxoSmithKline
Landis' witness list:

  • John Amory, University of Washington
  • Simon David, Mass Spec solutions
  • Dan Garret, teacher and magisterial judge (?)
  • Allen Lim
  • Wolfram Meier-Augenstein, Environmental Forensics, Queen's University Belfast
  • Eddy Merckx
  • Paul Scott.
Landis Supplemental witnesses:
  • Danial Dunn,
  • John Eustice
  • Timothy Brockwell, GVI

How are they doing?
  • USADA seems to be establishing that -6 is really unnatural.
  • Landis seems to be establishing some ISL violations in significant things, but whether they are enough to put the result in reasonable doubt is unclear.
What's new?
  • The details of the alternate B's are coming out, even if they aren't going to be admitted.
  • You3 found a chink in some MS data he expect Landis to pursue.
  • We found out about an odd drop in values between two days that Landis argues is impossible; this is the 'duelling graphs' issue.
  • USADA needs to convince a single metabolite standard is correct.
  • Landis needs to kill the -6 delta measurement, and the -5 and -4s in the alternates;
Style Points
  • Young is painfully slow asking questions. It wastes time, but if he is concise, he gets his points out and nothing extraneous.
  • Young objects to cross to let his witnesses think when they are going places he doesn't like.
  • Young is attempting to rebut things revealed in the opening argument.
  • Nobody else from USADA is talking. Are they being saved for later?
  • Jacobs is very much to the point, with little dancing. He's logical, and "just the facts".
  • Suh is a shark, using trial technique to find openings in cross to get USADA's witnesses to say things they don't really want to admit. He's emotional, and quick. He's channeling the anger of righteous indignation.
  • Suh isn't sharp on the science, using wrong terms for some things. Some wags think that means the case is weak, because he doesn't understand what he's talking about.

And that's all I'm writing today, folks.


swimyouidiot said...

Well, TbV/dB/Dave, and Bill, thank you. Great reporting on the first day.

I don't understand status of admittance of the other stage B sample info. The motion in limine was denied (without reasons given). Is there still some chance the other B samples won't be allowed?


swimyouidiot said...

Eddie Merckx? A character witness of some sort? Somebody who would discount any doping scenario? ??

beeble said...

And why LeMond for the USADA? He couldn't possibly have any factual information about the case so is he going to do character assassination on Landis like he did Lance?

Julie said...

LeMond, gag, that may be their most annoying move yet.

Again, a huge thank you to TBV and Bill, you must be exhausted and it's only day one! Your work is valuable and much appreciated!

WT said...

So Floyd won while everyone else he raced against was juiced-up by 20%?
I have a bridge not far from me- you can buy it from me-
if you want.

Cheryl from Maryland said...

Thank you TBV and Judge Hue. Rest your typing skills and brains for tomorrow.

Anonymous said...

Here's a link to a radio interview with John Amory one of the people from Floyd's witness list. It's from last August. They say Amory has worked with the USADA on doping cases. He doesn't get to speak much (there are two other guests), but I didn't hear anything to suggest he was sympathetic to Floyd's case at the time of the interview. He must have seen something that made him want to get involved. Should be a very interesting witness.

~ Cub

Anonymous said...

swim...I believe Axel Merckx roomed with Landis during the 2006 TdF. So Eddy may have some insight as to what Floyd did or didn't do during the tour.

Here's an excerpt of an interview Eddy Merckx did last September with Bob Cullinan after a charity fund-raising ride for the Oak Hill School in Marin County, CA.

Q: You faced your own doping allegations in 1969 in the Giro, and it was very hard on you. They were false allegations. How were you able to come back from those allegations?

"You know there is some story that I did it for the money, but I refused it. But then after I go and I do the Tour de France, and everyday to testing, and I won the Tour de France with 17 minutes 52 seconds. I think that was the best answer I could give".

Q: Did you talk to Floyd Landis, after his bad day at La Toussuire, and before his great comeback in Morzine? Can you tell us what happened?

"I tell him that the finish is in Paris! But I don't think he took anything, he just happened to be doing what he was doing. I don't know for sure. For me, it's a mistake, and I did not experience that, so I can not speak about that".


bill hue said...

Please don't read this blog to laugh at us. Or at least if you do, kindly keep it to yourself. That would be very kind of you and I would appreciate it.
Thank you.
Bill Hue

Theresa said...

Bill and TBV; you did awesome!! Thank you so much for all the work!!

Anonymous said...

Yes, I'll second the comments on the Great work you guys are doing, it is much appreciated to those of us that would like to follow the case live but can't.

On top of the transcripts the additional analyisis, resources, documents, and summaries are incredible.

This is an amazing example of internet information distribution that puts old school media to shame.

I have been following the case since day one, visiting the site daily, always appreciated the resource, but todays coverage blew me away and I just had to voice my thanks.

mfez said...

I am a lawyer who does lots of AAA labor arbitrations. Just because a witness is listed doesn' mean he'll testify. Lemond has nothing to offer, and probably won't be called. Also, a motion in limine is a pretrial motion, usually to exclude evidence. Floyd's team filed one about the B samples and it was denied, which is why we'll be hearing all about them.

Anonymous said...

ilsanjo: So the father of the rider who Landis has shared a room with suddenly becomes a reliable source as to what might have happened in that room? More reliable than Axel?

I'm pretty sure you'd all be up in arms if USADA had called the cousin of a doping specialist to say "Yeah, that Landis guy probably did it. He looks like a doper."

Thomas A. Fine said...

Merckx might be there for the same reason as Lemond - to look splashy.

I don't think he'll be a character witness - in public statements he's said he doesn't know if Floyd doped or not.

So if there is some real use, I can't imagine what that could be. Actually I can, but I'm just not saying.


Cindy said...

I'm guessing that Merckx is there to testify as a professional cyclist rather than a charactor witness. I'm sure the Landis team wants to show that it's completely natural for a cyclist to bonk one day, and be strong the next. That the S17 win wasn't an unnatural ride by Landis but about poor strategy from the other teams.

Anonymous said...

Bill and Dave -

THANK YOU for the excellent coverage yesteday, as well as the summaries you posted.

Thanks to your families as well for letting us have access to you for this period of time.


Thomas A. Fine said...

On the witness list at Pressbox, Mercks is listed as "World-class cyclist and expert in cycling tactics".

So I would guess he's there to testify that Floyd's win was due to tactics, and not a "superhuman" effort.

On to others. John Amory, is on the list as a "medical doctor and professor" is actually an endocrinologist with a focus on testosterone.

Dan Garrett is probably a character reference.

Simon Davis is probably there to answer questions specific to the equipment.

Wolfram Meier-Augenstein is an expert in IRMS and seems in particular to be an expert on sources of errors.


James said...

hey all... you guys are going above and beyond what I ever expected... I hope floyd takes you all on a good long ride and out for a couple of beers for all your efforts.

Keep up the good work...

Thomas A. Fine said...

On the other side of the fence, we have Rogrigo Aguilera, who's done a lot of work in developing the IRMS test for testosterone.

Together with Don Catlin (also on the witness list) they wrote one of the more important papers on the subject ("Performance characteristics...") however it's one of the studies where there were values among the controls that would be false positives. Also, they got very clear positives in that study, nothing like what Floyd had.

There's also Wilhelm Schanzer. He's also done quite a bit of research into IRMS and the T test. He was one of the scientists on the unpublished WADA study on diet. USADA has already asked the first scientist if anything in diet could affect the IRMS test, perhaps they want to elaborate on this in preparation for any such defense from Landis (who shows no signs whatsoever of mounting that defense).

Anonymous said...

Eddy Merckx clearly has a vested interest in the trial as his son Axel was a Phonak teamate of Floyd Landis for the 2006 Tour de France. Axel Merckx stands to gain his share of the 2006 TDF prize money if Landis can win the case and be declared the winner of the 2006 Tour de France. Any good Dad would like to see their son share in the glory of a Tour de France win.

Anonymous said...

Lemond vs Merckx, who's more credible?

Bottom line is a mistake was made....either LNDD made one or Landis did. My best guess is LNDD made the erreur.


Anonymous said...

If Mercks is a tactic specialist why not call Manuel Saiz who is a very nice aand "actual" DS, or Bruynell, or Riis who all know what doping means.

Anonymous said...

Here's another reason why Merckx might have been called (if they wanted to find out if his son knew anything about doping they would've called Axel instead, right?): If you recall a nice little bit of color after Floyd's "meltdown" stage during last year's Tour (before the heroic mountain ride in the next stage) was that Eddie gave him a pep talk. Plus, to show his confidence, Eddie went out and bet I forget how much money on Landis to win the tour (in the face of very long odds at that point). And surprise: Landis has a great day, the next day, and goes on to win the Tour (and Eddie pockets a little cash -- it wasn't a huge sum, especially in light of what he could make in endorsements etc. and surely he didn't make the bet cuz he needed spending cash). But what if you're the prosecution: wouldn't it be great to get this cycling legend (who himself allegedly doped before it was illegal), ask him a few questions about that bet, about his past doping, and about exactly WHAT he and Floyd discussed during that pep talk. Great theater at the least, huh? Hmmm ...