Saturday, May 19, 2007

Hearing - Sat - Catlin Direct and Cross I

The real TV cameras are working, and the pictures from behind the Reuter's editing machine is better than we've been seeing before. The CVN feed is using "industrial" cameras, but we're getting broadcast quality now.

Seating limitations are in effect for the first time -- one per news outlet, by priority, and we've snuck in under the wire and Bill is taking our seat. They are keeping everyone out until the parties return, which they've never done before.

It looks like Bill is getting his money's worth for the trip, and we'll miss him very much when he goes. The quality of our coverage will deteriorate a lot in his absence.

If Landis is the witness of the afternoon, it'll be interesting to see who does the examinations. Expect Young to be precise, but if Barnett comes up to the podium, it's going to get ugly.

Catlin moves to the box, and is being sworn in.


q: qualifications...
a: [ a bunch ]


q: when in drug lab business?
a: 1981, when IOC asked to build out a lab for '84 LA games.

q: were you the first director of the lab, until March of this year?
a: yes.

q: in the course of your more than 20 years... how many testosterone and epi chromatograms have you looked at?
a: thousands

q: steroid profiles?
a: thousands

q: how long has UCLA been doing IRMS
a: since about 1998.

q: what documents have you reviewed?
a: I'm sure I have all of these at home. Have looked at some things more than others.

q: have you looked at that A and B packs?
a: i did.

q: overall, when you look at the irms and t/e results, do you have an opinion?
a: i do.

q: what.
a: no question, doping was going on, it's inescapable that's what was going on.

q: let's go over the pieces, irms first. you reviewed the delta-deltas. are they reliable?
a: yes.

q: quality of lab work?
a: excellent.

[ chart is put up on stand ]

q: you see the 5aA is -6.
a: correct.

q: in your opinion, do you need more than one metabolite with that kind of delta to call it positive?
a: no.

q: if the sample had been analyzed at ucla, and gotten these results, would you report a positive.
a: positive with side letter to client (USADA) that the sample is positive to the WADA criteria, but that we have written a letter that our published criteria would call it a negative.

q: after declaring a positive with that letter, would you be confident standing up to a panel defending the result?
a: certainly.

q: Have you looked at the t/e chromatograms?
a: Have looked at some.

q: have you also reviewed EX 30

[ eye chart document of uring results from various wada labs ]

[ landis, chin in hand. ]

q: have you reviewed that before.
a: yes.

q: Notice the sample in the box there had been 18 prior results on this athlete from ucla.
a: yes.

q: after that 2 from ucla.
a: yes.

q: is this a steroid profile consistent with doping with testosterone?
a: yes.

q: any hesitation? what is the historical value approximately of the t/e ratios?
a: average 1.5 and stdev .46 coef 30%.

q: when you looked at the chromatograms for t and e in the doc pack, were you satisfied based on your experience that the t/e was a whole lot higher than 1.5 on Jul 20?
a: yes.

q: is that consistent with normal human physiology to have this kind of spike?
a: no.

q: one of the issues discussed at great length was where to do the retesting of the other seven samples. EX 64, USADA 1477.

[ letter asserting mechanical breakdown of IRMS at UCLA ]

q: had USADA been bothering you from February until March 27th?
a: yes, they were pests.

q: whas it up briefly?
a: yes, briefly in february.

q: some reports from then?
a: yes, there were some, then it went down.

q: in your opinion when someone takes T does it effect hematocrit and hemoglobin?
a: yes.

q: how?
a: hemoglobin goes up maybe 10%, you woudn't see it day to day. T is very slow reacting in that sense, you have to looks weeks later, and you'll see they are edging up.

q: so a survey of blood rerports would be useful.
a: yes.

q: would low doses of testosterone affect ability to recovery in a long stage race?
a: it would help recovery form major exercise.


[ Landis mouths, "Oh Man." ]


q: you were the director of ucla lab for..
a: 25 years.

q: accredited by WADA?
a: yes; at first by IOC in 1983, and morphed into WADA.

q: could you explain what WADA accred consists of?
a: oh gosh. you do a lot of work, you have to put a petition forward through USADA, once that filed, then work begins to show the accred is merited. That could take 3-5 years. You are accumulationg people, standards, qc work, start taking proficiency tests to show you know what you're doing, and after this, if you are successful you become accredited.

q: so it takes 3-5 years.
a: wouludn't want to say exactly. nowadays 3.

q: what does it take to maintain it?
a: you get proficiency samples, and get the right answers.

q: what is the proficincy sample?
a: a uring sample prepared elsewhere, either spiked or from someone given the drug, as blind samples. typically 6, 4 of which contain a drug or two, and to analyse them to get the right answers?

q: how oftern?
a: 3x/yr.

q: anything else to keep accred.
a: goes on and on; file reports, do research, not doing certain things, and get a "good citizen" to wada world of labs.

q: what is a good citizen?
a: participate, and not testify against your neighbor.

q: in order to maintain your accreditation, you may not testify against other labs?
a: it's very clear it is not permitted to testify against other labs.

[ what!? ]

q: are you familiar with the laboratory code of ethics?
a: yes, I wrote it.

q: how opportune.
a: the first version.

q: Annex B, ISL, Code of ethics, 3.4 page 55.
a: yes

q: i'm going to highlight sections. "the lab should not provie tesdting services in defense of an athlete", did you write that?
a: no, it seemed to have changed.

q: [Conduct detrimental] that would cast doubt.
a: i do.

q: is this a description of being a good citizen.
a: yes.

q: have you ever testified in an anti-doping trial, have you ever testified in defense of an athlete.
a: one case with Mr. Jacobs that might be classified that way, perhaps another a year or two on a hair loss product, where I got beat up kind of badly.

q: the zach lund case?
[ catlin looks aside ]
a: mr. jacobs was in two cases.

q: in lund you were testifying on behalf of usada?
a: yes,

q: the other, the kicker vessel case, was civil, ,not a doping case.
a: yes.

q: how many other times have you testified.
a: a lot.

q: how many?
a: about 50.

q: whole career?
a: yeah.

q: with the exception of lund, on behalf of usada, the rest were against the athlete.
a: i wouldn't say that, but it was defending my results.

q: you are no longer with ucla lab.
a: correct.

q: you recall there was an artic le about your departure in the la times.


a: yes. I think that's hilzik's article.

q: you say "i'm not going to be testifying against my old friends."
a: read the rest.

q: let's stay to this.

a: i might.

q: we agree we want it right for everybody.
a: right.

q: would you still testify against your old friends.
A: I thought Hiltzik had pushed farther than needed. Most cases are winners.

q: all the one's you testified in were winners?
a: I think so.

q: They're all winners.
a: don't know. a lot.

q: called LNDD's work excellent, correct.
a: I think they did very good work.

q: you said, "exellecnt"
a: I think on the whole, it was.

q: you see whole trial?
a: no, was here monday, read articles since.

q: your opinion is all the chromatograms that all the chromatograms are excellent?
a: no.

q: but the quality is important?
a: yes.

q: the chromatography in at least some of these are not good.
a: yes, or let's say could be better.

q: when you look at them and say not good or could be better, are they not good?
a: getting to needing to look at specific ones.

q: are there others that fall in another category.
a: haven't looked at them all. some could be poor. I didn't look for the bad ones, I looked for the good ones.

[ Landis covers face with hand. ]

q: GDC 1362, a UCLA chromatogram.

YOUNG: source of this document?

SUH: we're not going to answer.

BRUNET: you just filed this today, and there's no indication where it comes from.

YOUNG: he's entitled to see where it came from, and the whole document.

[ part of a trap closing? ]

YOUNG: our exhibit books end at 1342.

SUH: we have the full document package involved with this

CAMPBELL: do not interrupt, can you give it to them.

SUH: I believe it has not been redacted.

[ suh is nervous. he's afraid they won't let him spring the trap. ]

Q: looking through the documents, would you not have approved this chromatography at ucla?
a: yes, i'm not sure we're on the right wavelength, there are hundreds of documents here.

q: you said earlier you'd looked at the results, and the CIR values, and you'd have declared an AAF, according to the positivity at your lab.
a: No, not with my lab criteria, but with the WADA criteria.

q: if you had obtained the same results, if accurate, you would not declare an AAF when you were head of UCLA?
a: No, that's not what I said. I said I'd declare according to the WADA criteria with a letter saying it wouldn't meet our criteria.

q: let me show GDC 534, confidential letter from UCLA, refers to letter, "results indeterminate, we suggest additional samples" dated 2003. What about these values? 5B -23.6 5a -27.7
a: these are absolute, not deltas.

q: these woujld be -4.4 and -.3
a: correct.

q: in a situation where you had a -4.4, you declared these indeterminate.
a: yes.

q: did not declare adverse.
a: indeterminate, yes.

[ Landis looks nervous ]

q: you said refer to june 2001 letter, for criteria, GDC 637, criteria and assay detail?
a: yes.

q: both deltas are at least 3 stdevs from mean average.
a: yes.

q: indeterminate is one abnormal, one normal.
a: yes.

q: so this report by those criteria is indeterminate, which is what you reported.
a: yes.

q: GDC 535, Jul 10, 2006, in this letter refers to same criteria letter.
a: yes.

q: chromatogram, do you find there is a problem with a high sloping baseline?
a: i don't consider myself an expert on high degree... show me a sample

[ "don't do that" says the press room! ]

q: what causes a sloping baseline?
a: I don't wish to discuss it.

q: why not.
a: It's just something I don't like to discuss.

BRUNET: answer the question.

a: I don't know.

q: do you feel not qualified to talk about sloping baselines?
a: i heard you talking the other day and i couldn't understand a word.

q: that wasn't my question.
a: I don't consider myself an expert; you'd be better off talking to Dr. Brenna. The people at my lab who do these things don't bring it to me, they just see and get it done.

q: sloping baselines are part of good chromatography.
a: yes.

Q: let me show you one, LNDD 894. see the circle with the arrow? is this a good or a bad one?
a: one of the less good ones.

q: give it a grade like a school.
a: it's a C. They get worse.

q: How many C's did you get in school?
a: I don't know.

q: another. LNDD 1110
a: yes i see it. what is it? Sample?

q: B sample from stage 11 F3.

[waits for question]

q: grade?
a: C, C-

q: USADA 171, EX 24. gradE?
a: pretty good.

a: this looks like gcms.

q: when you look at chromatograms, is peak separation important to you.
a: largely yes, there are times I can live with bad separation, sometimes not. this is pretty fine.

q: when doesn't it matter?
a: when it's way over the side, and you interested in what's over here.

[ argues to USADA 5a validity if others are bad ]

q: LNDD 991, EX 87

[ landis looks better. ]

q: we can enlarge the peak 13 and peak 15.
a: i see that.

q: is that good separation?
a: it looks like a shoulder, not a peak.

q: does that give you cause for concern?
A: can you zoom out? oh yeah. that peak looks like 2% of the total; although not perfect, it doesn't totally invalidate the ratio for the peak 13.

q: isn't there an 'if' in you answer? it doesn't invalidate the results if you account for it?
a: i don't follow.

q: if there's no co-elution, there's less cause for concern?
a: yes.

q: so it depends on the technique?
a: when you talk about removing a peak from a trace, I don't know how it's done, and don't know that software?

q: can you make manual adjustments on starts and stops?
a: yes.

q: when do you use that.
a: the s/w picks, and we adjust if incorrect.

q: do you do it, or someone else?
a: someone else.

q: why?
a: the s/w isn't perfect, the human needs to oversee. if the human is happy, then it can be changed; not done in gcms, but common in irms.

q: in your lab, is data deleted?
a: I think we're very different. We do warm up injections, and don't even collect data; I don't know if that's deleting it.

q: do you acquire data, and delete it, when being run in sequence?
a: not that I know of?

q: if you knew that was occuring at a lab, would you be happy?
a: I'd want to know what was going on. I don't think I'd encounter it. Obviously we dont' delete real data.

q: never had that issue at ucla, of deleting real data as part of an irms sequence?
a: i don't think so.

SUH: break to get file to witness?

BRUNET: 15 minute RECESS.


Ken ( said...

q: if the sample had been analyzed at ucla, and gotten these results, would you report a positive.
a: positive with side letter to client (USADA) that the sample is positive to the WADA criteria, but that we have written a letter that our published criteria would call it a negative.

Oh please let this get hammered on in the cross. I see a potential for points towards Landis and a hammering away at WADA standards.

Anonymous said...

Yes, the "Ayotte" standard we forgot to mention. "If I said its positive, its positive." Next question.

Anonymous said...

Trislax here: are pretty adament that doping was going on based on the results, but if YOUR lab had gotten them, you would have reported a NEGATIVE based on your lab's criteria?????Does this sound contradictory to anyone else?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Trislax again: Do people realize that they totally undermine their credibility when they say what is clearly NOT excellent lab work IS excellent...? When he said that, he lost my vote for USADA lab director of the year...

Ken ( said...

q: anything else to keep accred.
a: goes on and on; file reports, do research, not doing certain things, and get a "good citizen" to wada world of labs.

q: what is a good citizen?
a: participate, and not testify against your neighbor.

q: in order to maintain your accreditation, you may not testify against other labs?
a: it's very clear it is not permitted to testify against other labs.

[ what!? ]

Whoa! It might not get Landis off, but man that should be great ammunition against WADA and USADA in terms of forcing changes via Congress; especially with the "the lab should not provie tesdting services in defense of an athlete" clause. Let's totally deny athletes any chance of due process. How un-American, and to think our tax dollars are paying for this. It makes me sick.

Anonymous said...

Add to that the panel's "independent" expert is the head of the Rome lab.

So, if a panelist turns to her in confidence and says, "the LNDD really screwed this up, correct?" If she answers yes, her lab loses it accreditedation?

This alone should be grounds for appeal in a civil court.

Anonymous said...

The question should be; Mr. Catlin, why do you not recognize a one metabolite positive test as being a positive test? Could it be no one has shown a one metabolite positive test is specific to exogenous testosterone.

Anonymous said...

These are the same people who want you to believe that the anti-doping scientific research is unassailable because it's peer reviewed. Riiiggghhhttt.