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.

[MORE]

Tomorrow,

• 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.
  

Challenges

• 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.