Saturday, May 19, 2007

Hearing - Sat

BRUNET: Morning everyone. Day 6.

Appearances.

Brunet: time landis 10:00 hours / usada 15.1. Request by media for time sheet; allowed.

[MORE]


WEISS (Landis): about a document not produced, request to strike something.

[ landis puzzled, no sound. ]

Campbell: incompleted study

WEISS (Landis): positivity criteria.

I think they are moving to strike Shontzer because of non-production.

YOUNG: We didn't need to call him about positivity in Cologne, this is about Paris. In response to allegations made the sample would be negative at UCLA, Sydney, Colongne, we've identified those directors as witnesses. As to the study, it can't be considered because of order 2, documents obtained later on, not covered by agreement. Leaving us with an incomplete study, and Shontzer is saying the data is published in a workshop, ex 35, and accepted for published criteria.

CAMPBELL: Cologne positiviey before Feb 22?

YOUNG: document was study and produced. don't have documents on positivity criteria. Just going to ask him if it would be positive at his lab. If you the panel doesn't want to hear his answer, I won't ask.

CAMPBELL: My reading of the agreement was that Cologne was not covered by that agreeement.

ONEILL: The intent of the agreement was to get us documents so we could make cross, and now offer testimony without document.

YOUNG: Agreements...

[ Looks like Landis got snookered in a discovery agreement. USADA didn't ask for the documents, so they didn't need to produce them. Now they will offer his testimony without documentary support. ]

SUH: If we want to show documents, how do we do that?

YOUNG: we sent him all the exhibits. That means he got all the boxes, I don't know how good he can be at finding them.

It's loud here, but Schanzer is having trouble hearing.




TESTIMONY OF Wilhelm Schn├Ązer, Phd (telephone)
Director. Institute of Biochemistry of the German Sports University Cologne

DIRECT BY YOUNG

q: ready?
a: yes, I am ready to begin.

q: your experience in irms for T detection.
a: head of lab 1995, working in anti-doping since 1989. IRMS for steroids since 1997. Last 3 years analyzed 1300 samples and controls. Generally followup studies when T/E > 4 or other suspicions. 50-60 reported positive reports. Technique is well developed and reliable, and accepted from my point of view.

q: any overturned by a panel?
a: no hearings; all were accepted by athletes. tests done for other labs also accepted.

[ YOUNG can't control his answers like he can do in the room -- the last one ran on past where he'd have stopped it live, when he went into doing samples for other labs. He doesn't want that information in, because it raises why LNDD couldn't have sent some to Cologne. ]

q: any overturned?
a: no.

q: would it be typical if there was a case or challenge that you would be called in and asked to defend it?
a: yes.

q: have you reviewed the LNDD LDPs?
a: yes, looked over the files and data, in my opinion the IRMS technique was well applied, presented in excellent ????, known lab for several year, and the data is excellent and clearly shows an AAF for testosterone or prohormone [what is that?]

[ Landis not that happy ]

q: have you looked at the controls and are you satiisfied.
a: yes, seen peak forms and peak shapes of controls, and gives me clear indication done in good form, and clearly presented.

q: in interest of time, won't take you through all of the different controls. A question raised by Landis is regarding the internal standard. If you EX 24/25 USADA 185 and USADA 351. 185 first. Testimony from LNDD was the internal standards was to measure retention time, and they don't look at quantification.

q: if you did pay attention to the quantification, would the differences trouble you?
a: i looked at the data, and got a STDEV of .65 per mil. A little bigger than some others because of place in chromatogram, but well acceptable in our view.

q: would that apply to B as well.
a: STDEV of .59/mil, also very well acceptable. Instrument is running under perfect conditions, and data is highly reliable.

q: what metabolites does Cologne look for using IRMS?
a: routinely, we use andro-etio, and something or other. If higher than 3 per mil. Also in 5a and 5b in suspicious sample.

q: USADA 352,
a: this picture presented the values of the sample with differences calculated and gives results that were reported > 3 per mil; they consider .8/mill, and conclude 5a is -6.39 is clear evidence.

q: if you were to have analyzed these samples and obtained this data, would yo call a positive.
a: we use a different method, I would have reported positive on higher than 3 per mil.

q: would you add on top of that uncertainty?
a: Paris uses it; our 3 per mil was created by reference population study including variance so we don't consider it in the evaluation. Just use the 3 per mil.

[ where is LNDD's validation study?]

q: EX 34, WADA Progress report March 2007.

[ document they snuck in by finessing rules ]

q: published in public forum?
a: yes, data presented in March to workshop of dope analysis, presented to scientists, to be published in proceedings.

CAMPBELL: is this the study we've been talking about? Renew objection to this study?

ONEILL: inaudible

q: is this an incomplete study?
a: first part of a WADA study, includes all measurements, data is complete, to be published soon.

CAMPBELL: peer reviewed?

a: status is data is accepted by reviewers, but not sure of status through reviews. in general accepted.

q: reviewed in workshop by the scientist? questions?
a: study was interesting and well accepted in discussion.

CAMPBELL: want to converse with panel.

[ landis looks at panel, focused ]

CAMPBELL: clarification -- is this peer reviewed?

a: the document is in the position that it is accepted; in hands of independant reviewers, don't know outcome.

MCLAREN: we understand, Mr YOUNG, can you help us understand?

YOUNG: let me summary,

[ THE YOUNG RUSE -- tell the witness what to say, so he can say yes. Will Landis attorney's get to offere their own version? ]

q: that is a type of peer review?
a: yes.

[ hoots in press room. ]

q: then accept for pub?
a: yes.

q: then another level before final, and that is what is in process?
a: yes. final acceptance is still pending.

CAMPBELL: SUH, comment?

SUH: inaudible.

YOUNG: there are different levels of reliability of scientific evidence, it would be hard to believe that one could only rely on peer reviewed evidence, if it is otherwise reliable. We rely on opinion evidence from experts that we consider reliable. I'd be surprised if that were the case on any scientific document.

a: that is correct.

[ Panel discusses ]

MCLAREN: we're letting it in. two reviews are sufficient.

q: In your study, what does it say about use of T gel?

MCLAREN: Botre say he was chair of the panel of experts.

YOUNG: no comment, no problem.

a: the data show the 5a to the 5b is much more influenced (depeleted) and this may an effect of the cream on the skin. This could be one explanation for the 5a being the best parameter than the other steroids produced in the body.

q: Figure 20 of your study, page 15. data of volunteer p9 before, during and after intermittant application of gel. Am I reading it correct that after administration, the 5a was affected twice as much as 5b?
a: in this case it was much more influenced, correct.

q: was that also true after the athlete had taken time off from application of gel and started again?
a: yes, correct. this was after one week on and off.

BRUNET: it's difficult to hear you.

[ Landis yawns. ]

marching through graph,

CAMPBELL: I'm going to want to ask questions.

q: Final question, looking at the IRMS in this case, do you have any doubt this was an athlete administering exogenous T or precursors?
a: data shows T or precursors have high agreement with data seen with low application of T.

NO QUESTIONS





QUESTIONS FROM PANEL

CAMPBELL: did you also monitor the endogenous production of the individual steroids to see if there was suppression?

a: in general the E was suppressed, the 5a was increased, in general. The ratio of 5a to E show a clear significant change.

q: you said the E was suppressed, I'm thinking of a screen.
a: we found in the studies of 18, in only half was the T/E greater than four. This is still a problem for doping control.

q: depression in natural steroid profile?
a: yes, several, which could be seen in the T concentration and in the T/E and other parameters.

NO QUESTIONS





CROSS BY JACOBS

q: questions from study, ex 34, p 14, figure 18.

[ te and delta delts of P10 before during and after 6 week continuous application of T gel. ]

q: the blue dotted line is at what value?
a: TE ratio of 4.

q: so the dotted line is the screening line. so this shows every time he was administered, his ratio went above 4.
a: yes. during this phase.

q: figure 19, same page. top graphs for TE ratio, intermittent application, Person 9.
a: yes.

q: this shows this individual shows that every time it was applied the T/E was at or above 4:1.
a: yes.

q: turn to EX 34a, continuation of the same study.
a: yes.

q: this is P3, showing every time gel applied, TE well in excess of 10:1





PASS TO SUH

q: when you look through the Landis documents, did you see in the testing of the other stages that the IRMS values and AAF were allegedly positive, but that the T/E results were negative.

[ the tv folks in the press room are surfing the web, and ready to check out. ]

SUH wishes to send a fax of exhibit to Schanzer.

this is a summary of all test results with TE values: 2.8 1.3 2.5 1.5 1.8 11 2.5 1, corresponding 5a -2.91, -4.52, -1.01, -5.06, -6.39, -4.80, -4.96;

RECESS 15, back at 11:40


10 comments:

Anonymous said...

this cannot be effective use of the clock. can you hear me now? now? how about now? Schanzer may need to get in touch with Phonak for some hearing instruments......

bill hue said...

Agreed.
Bill

Yol said...

Is this a teleconference?
Can we see or only hear him as he gives his answers? These transcripts [THANK YOU again for all your hard work] don't convey his tone; does he sound casual or scripted?

Anonymous said...

Cross should be fun.

Anonymous said...

why is it that I can sit on my couch and "see what is going on" and the damn doctor that is testifying IN the case cannot?

Anonymous said...

This IS NOT peer reviewed in the academic sense for publication.
There is a level of review to be included in the workshop, but that is not the same as the scrutiny the paper will undergo before it is accepted for journal publication...

Ken said...

Anonymous 11:07 AM is thinking along the lines of what I'm thinking, a paper pending peer review IS NOT peer reviewed. The whole purpose of peer review is to scrutinize a paper and many papers do not survive peer review.

bill hue said...

Guys, Young established what Peer Review is.... see my notes on the Young Ruse in my Observation section, below.

To me, the doctor sounds tired not scripted.

Anonymous said...

sounds like a dum comment but presume subjects in study were male?

Anonymous said...

Jacobs claims the use of the gel raises levels way above 4 or 5 to like ten or more on the figure 19 graph. So what? the good doctor simply said to Young that he sees the use of exogenous T in low levels. The study where the bars run high is probably a subject who lathered a ton of the stuff on. Shouldn't Young's doc Bowers mention that?