Thursday, May 17, 2007

Hearing - Thurs - Frelat I

all filing in

BRUNET: Morning everyone.


YOUNG: Interpreter missing, can we wait?


BRUNET: Can you call another?



BRUNET: Current time Landis 15.2hrs. USADA 16hrs.

YOUNG: On changing the liner on apr 17, we were asked for maintenance logs, we had them faxed,


[ Amber comes in late, sits in the audience. She's wearing all black too. ]

YOUNG: Shows the liner was changed on Apr 17

[ But he doesn't say what time. ]

BRUNET: This will be exhibit 115?

YOUNG: correct.


[ oh! surprise ]


Q: are you qualified in IRMS
a: yes.

Q: did you analyze Mr. Landis' B sample
a: yes.

q: who opened the bottle.
a: phillipe.

q: in your presence?
a: yes

q: seal intact?
a: yes.

q: in performaing analysis, did you follow LNDD SOP?
a: yes.

YOUNG: We'll get the witness her glasses.

q: You haven't seen this before during Mongongu's testimony.
a: yes.

q: she made reference to a maintenance log. what is this document?
a: the maintenance files of isoprime2 for april 2007.

q: along the left column are days of the month
a: yes

q: second page, second row for apr 17.
a: yes.

q: number 49
a: that is Mongongu's code.

q: next to 49 are two columns with a check mark. what are they?
a: it shows she changed the septum and the liner.

[ document does not say what time this was done, so can't correlate to logged stoppage ]

q: are the delta delta values you recorded on Landis B sample on page USADA 352?
a: yes.

q: after recording these values did you apply wada's priority criteria?
a: yes

q: after applying LNDD's uncertainty?
a: yes.

q: based on these reported values, and your application of wada's priority criteria and your lab's uncertainty, did you detrmine this was a positive for exogenous t?
q: yes.



q: how long at LNDD
a: since jan 2001

q: positions?
a: chemist analyst in screening till feb 2006; then specialist analyst chemist in irms;

q: before jan 2001?
a: student.

q: LNDD is your first job?
a: yes.

q: what training did you have at lndd on performance of the gcc irms?
a: cynthia mongongu trained me.

q: all of your training is from her?
a: yes.

q: what did that training consist of?
a: she supervised preparation of samples, and then explained the use and maintenance of the isoprime machine. That is she showed me how to use it, and then she let me do it. Then if there was anything I forgot, she would correct me.

q: this was essentially on-the-job training? showing you how to do it while doing it?
a: not exactly.

q: you didn't attend a seminar or class on the technique?
a: yes.

q: she showed you how to do whihle doing samples at the lab?
a: no.

q: what else did she do?
a: i did not use samples, I used blanks.

q: so it wasn't that you were trained on samples, but on blanks.
a: yes, the training was solely on the blanks, because when the training is not validated, i'm not allowed to work on samples.

q: when were you first allowed to work on samples with the irms?
a: i believe towards the end of february 2006.

q: it wasn't until five months before the 2006 tour you were allowed to use it yourself?
a: yes.

q: because lndd had not determined you were ready?
a: because I was in a training period.

q: USADA 254, you are operator 26.
a: yes.

q: center line aug 3 2006, 11:03a op 26, S004 ambient, aliquote for confirmation for EC31. That's what you did?
a: yes.

q: looking at this form, show me where on the form where it records the transfer of the sample to you.
a: the transfer is not written but it is written that I received the bottle.

q: the form reads at 11:03 the aliquot occured, right?
a: in order to do the aliquote, I have to have the bottle in my hand.

q: where does it show where you got the bottle or the time, the transfer from op 18 to you?

DUNN: objection. she said she had the bottle.

q: the question was about the intra-laboratory transfer, before 11:03 and she did the aliquot. the Coc is about the process of the transfer of the sample through the laboratory. We now where things were done in the laboratory, but we don't know how the bottle was moved in the laboratory.
a: the transfer is not recorded (written).

q: please look at ex 25 any document that shows intra-laboratory transfer in this process. EX 25 is the lab packet for the B sample.

YOUNG: please be more specific about the process.

q: the process by which the sample moves through the intra-laboratory transfers for the B sample.

a: there is no registration or entry with respect to how the sample is transferred. there are entries which pertain to who received the bottle at what time, and where.

q: in other words, just what we have here on USADA 254, who and what was done, but nothing else.
a: yes.

q: Turn to retesting process, of 10 other samples were tested by irms in april, 7 of which were Mr. Landis, 3 of which were other samples. you participated? with M. Mongongu?
a: yes

q: the process by which irms is conducted takes more than 1 or 2 or 3 steps? many steps?
a: there are three well defined steps.

q: describe them.
a: the preparation; the identification by gcms; and the isotopic analysis by irms.

q: during the course of your training, you were taught it was important to record information about the steps along the way?
a: yes.

q: you would never delete information or data from any of those steps during performance of the analysis?
a: yes.

q: you would also agree the performance of the sequence of the analysis consists of having the instrument analyse various samples, in order, from beginning to end.
a: yes.

q: and that those samples are stability runs, three of them, in order, mix cal irms, 1 2 3 in order, and mix cal acetate, and then for exo-t 6 samples, 3 blanks and 3 actual specimans in each of 3 fractions.
a: well in fact the irms analysis is one blank, one sample, and at the time of preparation we separate one blanak into three fractions, not 3 blanks.

[ they agree ]

q: then followed by a mix cal acetate?
a: yes.

q: this order is done in sequence?
a: yes.

q: the fact it is done in sequence is a QC measure of the lab?
a: [thinking] yes.

q: designed to test the accuracy and precision of the irms instrument?
a: yes.

SUH: Mr. Chair, interject concern about translation of precision

BRUNET: yes, we had that with Dr. Brenna.

a: yes.

q: failure along the way for those QC steps would lead you to believe the instrument was not either precise or accurate.
a: yes.

q: in doing these steps in sequence,you agree that have to be done in order?
a: yes.

q: and they be done one right after another.
a: yes.

q: that is how you were trained?
a: yes.

q: GDC 1061, [ a logfile ]

[ It looks like Simon Davis took Amber's seat next to Arlene ]

q: 16:53:23 commencing analysis F1, then 17:37:35, saving f1.raw
a: yes.

q: then 17:37 and 18:28, a gap in time.
a: yes.

q: about 50 minutes.
a: yes

q: do you recall what happened then?
a: if you look further down, you'll see a second sample was taken...

YOUNG gets up and explains something.

a: in fact the wait time was the wait during which the second analysis finished on the gcms so that it then goes to the isoprime.

q: you remember that occurring?
a: yes I do remember.

q: before today have you seen these log files?
a: when they were printed at Dr. Botre's request.

q: not after then?
a: yes.

[ confusion about Bordry and Botre ]

q: have you reviewed them?
a: no.

q: you only saw them once, and didn't keep any contemporaneous notes about what happend on your own?
a: no, but I remember.

q: how many tests do you do on a monthly basis?
a: about 20.

q: and you did this test like you do all the others.
a: certainly.

q: picking one of 20 a month, is that one a day about?
a: yes.

q: do you remember doing one in january 2007?
a: yes, I did do some.

q: can you remember what you did on january 5th?
a: 5th was a saturdy, and didn't work?

q: only work normal week?
a: yes.

q: Jan 8?
a: before that I was on holiday, so I think I would have been preparing samples.

q: Jan 9?
a: I finished preparation and did pre ... by gcms.

q: feb 4th?

[ counting on fingers ]

a: no. I don't remember exactly what I was doing on feb 4th because I have no sheet on which to find this out.

[ she can't remember without documentation. ]

q: would you like to see a calendar that shows jan 5th is friday rather than saturday?
a: oh no you're right, it's the 6th. I'm sorry I didn't have the dates in my head.

q: When you made the mistake about Jan 5 or 6 no one believed you were trying to deceive, an innocent mistakes.
a: yes.

q: a mistake in your memory. it happens.
a: yes. january is a long time ago.

q: 19:1@:45 to 19:29:17 gap, do you remember what happened in that gap?

DUNN: clarification not objection. Since Mongongu and Frelat were involved, you should establish she was the operator at this time.

SUH: I'm not going to ask her about anything that's not hers. She already said she remembered on the same page.

a: the second sample is my sample.

q: are you saying you didn't do the ones before, the F3 sample?
a: ok, the blank is mine because it corresponds to the 423 sample.

q: you were the operator for this part of the testing?
a: yes.

q: so what happened during that period?
a: i just counted the number of injections performed after that and that corresponds to the fact that I filled my dewer with liquid nitrogen.

q: you have a present time memory you did that during this time gap, that you filled the LN2?
a: yes, i said I helped myself by counting the number of injections performed afterwards.

q: how did you know it needed to be refilled?
a: we know that the dewar remains full for up to about 6-7 injections. so therefore it was 7pm filling it up I could go home.

[ and let it run overnight? ]

q: how long does filling the nitrogen take?
a: more or less?

q: yes.
a: about 5 or 6 to fill, then a certain period for the temperature to stabilise.

q: GDC 1064, 15:31:14 and 15:39:16 gap, what happened?

[ she's looks down at book of log up and down at screen. reading log files is fun ]

a: I must have filled it with nitrogen.

q: you remember filling it?
a: no, I don't remember, but it's written there.

q: where?
a: the time is right there.

q: there's nothing there that says fill nitrogen.
a: yes, I'm assuming, i suppose i filled it.

q: 17:08:22 18:03:46, gap. what happened?
a: that was my last injection of the samples, and and 18:48 was mongongu's first injection.

q: so mongongu should know about it?
a: no, what I'm saying is that every day we would prrepare two samples, I'd to one and her the other. So for each day of the irms injection, I would have one, and she would do the other.

q: 1069, blow up 8:45:20 to 8:59:20. 8:45:31 starting acq, 8:45:36, saved to sabilite1.raw.
a: yes.

q: then 8:47:35, starting, then 8:45:14 save to same file.
a: yes.

q: then 8:48 starting, 8:59:07, saving to same file.
a: may I explain? in order to prepare the irms in themorning we fill a LN and then we verify the peak center, and when it is good, we launch the stabilisation. I had forgotten to verify the peak center, when I noticed that, I verified the peak center and then to verify the center you have to open up the 22 CO2 valve, in order to do the peak center, and then you have to close the valve and I had forgotten to do that on the second one, which means I then closed the valve and then performed the stabilisation.

q: why didn't you do this when you filled nitrogen earlier?
a: because I forgot.

q: and you remember now.
a: yes, because it caused me to waster time.

q: and the time it caused you to lose 8:45:31 to 8:48:55, so you remember this because it caused you to lose 3 minutes on april 21?
a: well, i'm not sure I like the way you put it.

SUH: never heard that before.

q: 9:25:32: commenting mical irms, 49:40 saving;
a: yes.

q: 9:41 commencing mixcal 02.
a: yes.

q: at the top of the next page you save calmix irms 02 raw.
a: yes.

q: six lines calmix irms 03, and three lines later saved.
a: yes.

q: six lines later, commencing cal mix irms 01 again, later saved.
a: yes.

q: same file?
a: yes.

[ doing the whole sequence again , i'm skipping until a useful answer ]

q: do you recall the data from the first three are gone, right?
a: they don't exist because the do not correspond because they weren't mix cal irms's; I remember that morning because there was a lot of wasted time, not just 3 minutes, but more. when I put the mix cal irms into the autosampler, I did not place it in the right area. And I only discovered that when the third injection was performed, then I corrected the position and then started the mix cal irms again.

q: so to make sure I understand, you began the automatic sequence, you didn't realize until the end that they were in the wrong place?
a: yes.

q: then you stopped the process.
a: it stopped by itself.

q: then you put three more mixcal irms in the right place?
a: the injection of the mixcal irms is performed from one vial only.

q: so you put another vial in the right place and ran it again?
a: yes. i replaced the vial in the right position?

q: why didn't you use a different file name so we'd know what happened?
a: that's the way I did it?

q: absent your testimony here today, that is the only way we would now what happened here?
there is nothing else that shows this rerunning?

a: yes.

q: in other words, if someone were to say, the reason the mix cal irma and other samples were rerun and saved with the same filename was because you saw results you did not like and saved over it, the only way we'd know that didn't happen, is your memory of what occured that day?
a: yes.

q: you the did B sample analysis on S17?
a: yes.



Anonymous said...

Hmmm...seems like USADA took an entirely different approach than with Mong. ??

Anonymous said...

Maybe they have now confirmed that the train is on time? All they need to say is the test was done to SOP and it was positive.

Anonymous said...

Okay, is this important?

q: in other words, if someone were to say, the reason the mix cal irma and other samples were rerun and saved with the same filename was because you saw results you did not like and saved over it, the only way we'd know that didn't happen, is your memory of what occured that day?
a: yes

Is that all Suh has to show? That it is POSSIBLE something untoward happened? Not that it actually happened?

Does that flip the burden of proof, then USADA has to show that what she did didn't affect the outcome? If so, isn't it impossible to prove it didn't affect the outcome, because her memory is the only record of it?

And what is the significane of this just being a mixcal run not an actual sample?

Anonymous said...

I'm looking forward to seeing the look on her face when Suh asks her if she's the one who leaked info to L'Equipe.

Anonymous said...

Here's what really happened --
1) L'Equipe needed to hang Floyd because they were NOT going to have another American win their race in such an incredibly dramatic fashion.
2) The lab bosses make sure the critical testing is done by two women who are poorly trained and under qualified for such an important task, knowing from past experience that they will screw it up and give a false positive.
3) The women look over each other's inept work and confirm its accuracy to their gleeful bosses who leak it to L'Equipe.
4) WADA, et al., are complicit because having the highest possible profile case turn up positive justifies their continued existence and funding.
5) The women don't have to worry about getting fired for messing up because France has a "no firing of ineptt workers" policy.
6) FLOYD - FIND OUT MORE ABOUT THE WOMEN WHO PERFORMED THE TEST. THERE IS SOMETHING YET TO BE DISCOVERED, ie., cash, promotion, bonus, time off, free wine, boyfriend gets out of jail early, etc.

Anonymous said...

Hahahaha !
You americans have never been able to publish who really shot your president in public, you've got another one dreaming about mass destruction weapons to grab some oil, and you think you're allowed to write "what really happened" ?
Stop beeing so ridiculous, worldwide.

Laura Challoner, DVM said...

Anon 12:12

I will try to stop being ridiculous and I'll keep my money here at home since you want it that way (I've been to Europe 8 years in a row prior to this year but I won't go where I'm not welcome).
That is hardly the best way to promote world peace and understanding, though.

Anonymous said...

Had not previously occurred to me. This is a government lab; does it do testing for criminal cases? Does it have a different chain of custody procedure for them? Is it possible that the CoC is simply a sloppy French standard practice?
Does anyone know if this lab only exists to do sports related drub testing? Does it do testing for research?