Saturday, May 19, 2007

Hearing - Sat Catlin Cross II

Expecting Young and Barnett to make some noisy objections. There is something in the Pack they don't want entered. This could be the moment.

BRUNET: Welcome back. Do you have an exhibit?

SUH CONTINUES CROSS.

q: GDC 1362

YOUNG: is the entire 5 pages we got the entire exhibit?

BARNETT: what we don't have is any information about this document, or why it is redacted.

JACOBS: I have removed the sample number:

BARNETT: I want Mr. Jacobs to say where it's from and how he got it.

q: Do you see this chromatogram [ from UCLA laboratory ] GDC 1362.
a: yes.

q: what is you opinion of this one? a grade?
a: pretty good.

SUH: much ado about nothing.

[more]


q: you testified you received grief for testifying on the zack lund case?
a: yes.

q: what was the source?
a: I don't think wada was very happy.

q: Olivier Rabin.
a: I don't think he was very happy.

q: did he contact you before the hearing.
a: no, he was there, and they spoke to me.

q: what did they say.
a: before the case started, it was made clear to me it was not a good idea for me to do this.

q: who is Olivier Rabin?
a: Scientific director of WADA.

q: review the facts of the case, you were called by USADA, it involved finestra, before Torino games.
a: yes.

q: there was a debate whether finestra was a masking agent.
a: yes.

q: you testimony is that is was not.
a: yeah.

q: which was against wada's placement of it on the banned list.
a: yes.

q: your that it wasn't a masking agent was why they were unhappy.
a: not really, they were just concerned.

a: they were concerned I'd appear on the side of usada. one made a comment it was about getting to the truth, as if I was not going to be providing the truth.

REDIRECT.

YOUNG:

q: you were asked two different letters your lab had written. GDC book 00534, [letter with the -4.4 and and .4 in 2003 ], the WADA technical document that set the positivity for IRMS was published in Aug 2004, correct.
a: I don't know the date, I'll take your word.

[ shown on screen ]

q: you see the effective date is aug 2004.
a: yes.

q: this report was issued more than a year before that.
a: it was.

q: now the other you were shown, GDC 00535, (July 16), specimen redacted as is ucla code. We can tell its an OOC, and cycling, and date of collection may 28 2006. Analysed for steroids, masking, diuretics, HCG, with these methods. Also analysed using diol assay, IRMS, ref Jun 2001 letter, and give 5aA 5bb, and Pdiol
and say gcms lab conclusion different thatn number conclusion?

q: using the gcms as opposed to the irms, you determined TE > 4, and the other testing methods are negative.
a: yes.

q: did you leave it do usada to decide whether to proceed?
a: we provide the report, they make the decision.

q: remember the collection is May 2006?

[ Young puts up sanction announcement for Steve Alfred, 8 years , Feb 2, 2007 ]

q: just read. In fact, unless there was a coincidence, this is a sanction for that athlete. would you understand this is what happened to this letter?
a: I have no idea. I need help to connect them.

YOUNG: we can do that through someone else.

q: you were asked about usada winning all of its cases. In your opinoin, are all the cases you reported positive should usada have won?
a: of course they're all cheaters.

q: given this report, if you have any doubts.
a: yes.

q: if you weren't convinced, is there anything that would have made to testify?
a: you asked me, and I agreed, and I have no preconceived notion, and we see how it develops.

q: if you had come to a conclusion this is not a positive, would you have said stop?
a: sure.

RECROSS:

NO.

PANEL:

CAMPBELL: you were starting to do studies of endogenous suppression in steroid users.

a: we're interested, two drugs have an ability to suppress. Interesting clinically, because if you suppress them you need to take something in order to live. So they had to take something to get it back up.

CAMPBELL: EX 30, the eye chart, apparently Landis' complete longitudinal profile of steroids. Could you tell starting from Paris 2002, could you tell what you considered irregular, other than the one positive test?

a: I can't say that. I'd look at parts in detail, the T, E and TE. No. I can't make any conclusion whether this represents somebody taking designer steroid. The type of suppression I've seen isn't consistent with this. Neither one of the ones I know of look like this.

CAMPELL: this profile is not consistent with one consistently using a designer steroid?

a: I've seen a lot of profiles, this is very ordinary up until the box. Things over time may enable us to see something disturbing.

YOUNG:

q: if someone were using small doses of T, to try to keep TE under 4, would you expect the kinds of differences you see with designer steroids?

a: no. that's why people like testosterone.

NO QUESTIONS.

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

what file do they have to get to the witness that required a 15 minute recess?

bill hue said...

I think bathroom breaks are needed. Security is tight, once you leave you can't come back. So they are trying to be nice to everyone.

Anonymous said...

Do you think there will still be time to start Floyd's testimony today or will it be pushed until Monday?

Ken said...

Watching ABC News (U.S.) on TV and it sounds like they are wrapping up their evening news broadcast with a piece on the Landis hearings.

bill hue said...

Landis next.

Anonymous said...

Nice shout out in SportsIllustrated.com! catherine
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/austin_murphy/05/18/landis.lemond/1.html

"I did not have an opinion on Frelat's aptitude, or lack thereof, at discerning the peak on the chromatogram. This being my first day at the hearing, I understood up to one-twentieth of the science talk. (Thank heavens for David Brower's astoundingly comprehensive site devoted to Floyd's woes, trustbut.blogspot.com)"

Reading the despair on my face at one point, Jason Sumner of VeloNews bade me "Welcome to hell."

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

ABC News just ran their segment on Floyd Landis, it started at 37 minutes past the hour and ran for three minutes. It gave background history, commented that Floyd had scored early points with the admissions by the technicians and then focused on the LeMond issue. It closed with an Interview of a Velo News reporter saying he didn't thing the LeMond issue would play much of a factor.

Anonymous said...

Is Young about to speculate about an athlete. He doesn't have the rider #, how can he link it to another document?

Anonymous said...

why is campbell the only panel member that asks questions?

Anonymous said...

Because McLaren and Brunet have already made their decision weeks ago...

Anonymous said...

I've been visiting TBV for a few weeks now. I must say, that despite my views of Landis' case (and I am on the fence as to what I think), the gentlemen posting the wrap-ups and commentary are doing so in a very professional and hard-working way. I really appreciate this level of journalism.

Anonymous said...

Question about the paperwork that Young presented on an athlete that had received a ban - was that the same athlete whose paperwork Landis' team was showing that had had the numbers removed? i.e. the very same athlete that Landis' team was using as someone who wasn't shown to be positive had received a suspension? The doctor could not make the connection and the panel said they would look at it later. I am a bit confused?

bill hue said...

hard to say. Young was happy to imply that, though. Not clear for certain

Ken said...

q: you testified you received grief for testifying on the zack lund case?
a: yes.

q: what was the source?
a: I don't think wada was very happy.

q: Olivier Rabin.
a: I don't think he was very happy.

q: did he contact you before the hearing.
a: no, he was there, and they spoke to me.

q: what did they say.
a: before the case started, it was made clear to me it was not a good idea for me to do this.

q: who is Olivier Rabin?
a: Scientific director of WADA.


Boy this certainly sounds like institutionalized witness tampering to me. No wonder WADA has a 100% "conviction" rate, athletes don't stand a chance even if they are innocent.

Anonymous said...

Ken,

That sure sounds like something Mr. Lundh would like to know.

Dr. Rabin sounds like he knows how to deal in Omerta.