Saturday, May 19, 2007

Hearing - Sat Schanzer Cross Con't

After RECESS for FAX, SUH is continuing cross.

BRUNET: you got the fax? GDC 1063.

CROSS BY MR SUH:

[more]


q: back to the graphs before. your study shows administration of gel shows the TE over 4.0?
a: the data you have seen in these two people was yes.

q: yesterday, we had Joe Papp testify he took gel, and claimed he was not detected -- this is not true by your report?
a: if you look at summary chart annex following page 18, one person never exceeded TE 3, also depending on application. incorrect to say TE will increase over 4.

BRUNET: problem matching pages.

q: In annex 1, all those TEs were over acceptable range over longitudinal study?
a: Doesn't think so, there were some that was not true.

q: specific subjects?
a: subject 18...

Everybody is looking, SUH wants a moment.

q: other?
a: Person 16?

[ Landis has game face on ]

q: have you looked at longitudinal data for Mr. Landis.
a: yes.

q: have you had opportunity to calculate the mean, stddev, coef of the longitudal are 1.5, .46 and 30.7% respectively, from USADA brief, page 70.

[ based on values shown above, S17's reported 11 is clearly an outlier, either due to doping, or measurement error. ]

q: turning back to the summary chart we faxed, looking at the claimed aaf's, you see the TE values for the positive reports are 2.5, 1.8 11, 2.5 and 1, and below the range in the longitudinal study.

a: yes, I see that. most of these are screening values, not confirmation, need to be careful comparing. need a clear question.

q: july 18 is within the allowed range.
a: yes.

q: july 23, the value is within allowed range.
a: yes.

q: you said no one has overturned any of the positives done by your lab in last 2-3 years?
a: yes.

q: earlier?
a: no.

q: how many times have they been challenged?
a: no challenges in these cases.

q: do you know any personell associated with the LNDD?

A: I spent two years ago connections at workshops and meetings?

q: specific?
a: have contact with Dr. De Ceurriz.

q: what kinds of things did you discuss.
a: some scientific facts.

q: subject of the workshop?
a: EPO related things; never talked to him about IRMS.

q: you have reviewed all the documents?
a: I hope so.

q: all the peak shapes and forms were all good?
a: from my experience and point of view, I find them acceptable.

q: do you see a difference between acceptable and good?
a: acceptable is good for me.

q: when you say the peaks are good, I'll ask you if you see some issues, any of these issues.
a: ok

q: sloping baseline?
A: I've seen the 5a and 5b and 11k, I'd say I'd confirm them as good form.

q: asking about a specific component of good, do you see a sloping baseline problem.
a: I have to see the chromatogram. If you have clear standards, I have to look at clear clear data. I can't say.

q: you said you'd reviewed the data, from the review you've already done, do you see a sloping baseline problem.
a: I haven't said a sloping peak makes a problem.

q: do you see any problems with co-elution in the peaks?
a: I have also seen the gc/ms from this with clear mass spectra, and saw no interference.

q: do you see any problem with in any chromatograms related to good peak separation.

YOUNG: clarification. are we talking about irms only, or expanded into the t/e.

SUH: please stop coaching the witness.

a: I would fully accept the peak shapes, in my experience they are good, sufficient.

q: peak separation, not peak shape.
a: for the analytes, I see fully sufficent peak shape. no problem with interference with gc/ms assitance.

q: for every chromatagram in the case?
a: for the different fractions for the IRMS.

q: at your lab, when performing IRMS, do you overwrite data generated in a sequence.
a: this can happen if a sequence is stopped by a failure in the injection, and the analyst starts the run again and overwrites the broken file.

q: what would cause tech to stop and overwrite?
a: generally, injection failure needed broken, start before temp at set point... often sequences stopped due to technical problems, and the next section is run. sometimes broken file can be overwritten.

q: how about when the file is completed, and data is generated and saved. Would you delete that?
a: I don't make measurements myself, so I've have to ask my scientists. Normally it should not happen. But sometimes the sequence is started anew, and with the same number, the software will overwrite automatically.

q: you say in your lab the 5aAC internal standard is used as part of QC?
a: yes.

q: in your lab, sometimes the measurement falls outside measurement error?
a: when oxidation goes to the end and can be observed by QC substance and standard mix that is routinely run?

q: when that happens, what is the procedure at your lab?
a: different behaviours. the tech needs to find out what caused the effect. If the injection not working right, several reasons.

q: when discovered, what do you do with that test?
a: in general, the data will not be considered further for any conclusion.

q: when you find 5aa out of measure, you find the problem, and that don't consider the data that is part of that sequence?
a: no response.

[ sounds like a key question! ]

READ BACK.

a: yes, but only this sample, not the sequence. if clearly outside what we accept.

NO QUESTIONS.

YOUNG REDIRECT

q: could you open up EX 24, USADA 185, A sample summary, and USADA 351, B summary. Would any of the SI measures on this page be so far out of range be so fareout of range, you'd discard them?

a: no.

q: were you talking about gc/ms coupled to the IRMS?
a: there is in general a gc/ms with the same ports and columns, analysed in parallel, to make sure the peak is the right thing.

q: part of irms process.
a: yes.

q: TE and diol measures -- is a TE ratio -- is it the case that sometimes the TE is raised above 4 if using gel and sometimes not?
a: correct. it's a problem. difference between persons. some will never get higher than 4. 4:1 is not sufficient to detect such manipulation.

q: would the affect on TE be influences by how much a gel applied?
a: yes, also by metabolism, by time of sample after application, but high variation. in many cases it will not be obviously seen by screening procedures.

q: are the 5a also affected by metabolism, dose and time?
a: in general, all samples should be screened by irms. confused answer.

q: if an athlete were to take other prohormones at the same time as gell, would that affect te and irms?
a: the values may be affected by the kind of application, and types, with perfect manipulation of all of them they might circumvent detection by t/e ratio.

NO QUESTIONS

SUH: NO QUESTIONS

LUNCH

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

So why didn't they get Dr. Schanzer hooked up to CVN so he could at least see some of the documents discussed??

Theresa said...

If I could get on, the he could! He needs to go to FFF site!

It sounds to me that he repeating himself, or maybe that's just me.

Anonymous said...

video conferencing could've worked too,

Anonymous said...

Sargent Schultz of Hogan's Heros. "I know naathingk..naathingk" Ok, Say he says there is no problem whatsoever with any chromatigram. All of the sloping shoulders and coluded peaks and were just figment of Dr.Goldbergers imagination.