Thursday, May 17, 2007

Hearing - Thursday, post bomb

Geoghegan is sitting in the far right chair next to the bar gates, looking pretty dour. Landis is hunched low. The Landis attorneys arrive. Arnie picks up his laptop. Geoghegan leans forward and talks to Suh.

Lemond won't answer any questions. Jacobs rails about unfairness of arbitration. USADA calls Geohegan; SUH says he should be called later with counsel. The agree to call another witness, Ayotte.

Lemond goes out the back door; the press room empties.

Mr. SUH says that Geoghegan is fired as Landis' manager.


Ayotte sworn in.


q: do you review doc packs from many labs?
a: yes.

q: do you review packs on irms and TE?
a: yes.

q: have you reviewed the package for Landis' S17 A & B
a: yes.

Q: how carfully.
a: very carfully.

q: have you reviewed other documentation produced by LNDD?
a: yes.

q: do you have on opinion on whether the results reported by the paris lab are reliable?
a: yes I found the irms results were consistent of very good quality and the te value estiamted and confirmed was confirmed and coevalant with the irms results, and concluded it was sound.

q: does the montreal laboratory have a pdc europa irms machine?
a: since 1998-199 yes.

q: when your technician uses it to do irms, does he perform any manual integration?
a: they are instructed to perform manual intervention to establish peaks as much as they feel to achieve accuracy of results.

q: is there any way we could go back and look at the montreal documentation to tell which was done manual?
a: not on our equipment.

[ Landis conferring with attorney, browfurled. ]

q: this is the ISL p35 and; respondent says they require all of the adjustments made by the technician in the manual integration and data reduction be tracked somewhere? does the standard require that?

OBJECTION: calls for legal conclusion.

q: is it your opinion, based on your being involved in drafting the standard, would your manual

OBJECTION: legal conclusion?

a: headline of the seciton is about computer security and integrity of files that are in your computers. what would be covered if we were to make a decision on a concentration in excel, so someone can not acess that computer.

q: have you looked at the controls for the gcms and irms?
a: yes.

q: did you find them sufficient to establish accuracy?
a: the controls used were fit for purpose.

q: does it matter from a scientific point of view in which order they are run?
a: lost.

q: is it common for irms for gcms to zoom in and focus in on parts of a chromatogram?
a: if you want to improve the integration, yes.

q: would it be typical to make a copy when you zoom in and zoom out?
a: I have not seen that in other packages.

q: samples are put on an autosampler. is there any requirement in the ISL to run through automatically, consecutively.
a: they are designed to run overnight. If the analyst does the calibration and controls, and the setup is not correct, there is no reason to do the following automatic analysis.

q: is there a problem is run the controls, prepare the samples, and then run the samples?
a: absolutely not.

q: are you familiar with the mix cal acetate?
a: yes.

q: would you call it a positive control?
a: yes.

q: why?
a: those are known standards, precise content and bracket the expected range of results. not only a good control, but ensure the accuracy of the results.

q: when you look at the LDP, did you notice the sequence was stab/mixcal/mix AC/ fractions/ mix AC?
a: yes.

q: any problem if they were doing two samples mixed in together with the mix cal at the end?
a: not at all.

q: did you hear mongongu say that LNDD runs an internal standard 5aA. Does montreal?

[ landis head in hand, scribbling ]

a: it's common good practice to put a standard in each assay to determine retention time. we have the same standard.

q: do you quantify it?
a: no. there's no purpose.

q: is it a violation not to quantify?
a: no.

q: have you carefully reviewed the chromatograms in this case?
a: yes.

q: specific ones...
a: yes.

q: in reviewing them, did you see any problem with peak separation?
a: my overal comments were that the chromatograms were good peaks, the separation was good; they don't show co-elution, the baseline is good, it's in the right region of the machine accuracy.

q: baseline indicates matrix interference?
a: yes; i see none.

q: you've just said there wasn't. assume on a hypothetical chromatogram there is a problem with peak separation, interference, or both. if that existed (p32 ISL), would the existience of that be a departure from the ISL.

a: again I'd like to draw your attention to the title -- validation of methods of the lab -- it's general about validations a method, not a requirement for a particular sample.

I'm diverted to go outside.


James said...

This is F'd up... I'm going to ride my bike...which unfortunately has Greg's name on it...

I'll be back later...


Ali said...

In such a finely balanced case, that is the last thing Floyd needed. WTF, is going on. IF this is true about Geoghegan, then Floyd is right to give him the bullet. But if it is true, then the guy is a complete scum-bag. Why would Floyd have such a creep as his manager ?. OK, desperate times call for desperate measures, but there's a line. That's one side of it ...

The other side ?. Why would Lemond reveal his (claimed) childhood abuse to Landis when it was (claimed) he called Lemond ?. This sets my BS meter running at a higher than normal rate. I'm drawing no conclusions at this point, but my instincts say Lemond is lying and is suffering from a mental disorder which requires immediate attention. Seriously, inconsistencies abound !

Unfortunately Lemond has dropped his bomb and done a runner. We'll never know now.

Anonymous said...

Sounds like Landis admitted his guilt. No; not just sounds like, Landis did admit his guilt.

Anonymous said...

They are all scum bags...I sold my lemond bike a few years ago based on how big of a scum bag he has become. I hope everyone will do the same. Floyd is just as big as a scum bag.

This all proves one thing....every American ever to win the Tour de France has now been proven to be a jerk.

Anonymous said...

Guilt? You mean Will is guilty, not Floyd, because Suh says Will is fired?
I'm sorry to hear that LeMond was abused, if that is true. It would explain some of his behavior and I hope he has received some help for it. If he's lying about it to club Floyd, then he has an even greater problem. The sadness and sleaziness of this case is almost overwhelming. All this tragedy because of a bike race.
I need another bike ride, but I really need a shower to wash away the disgust I'm feeling for the whole process. -- Nick Jr.

Anonymous said...

The current questions examines the Montreal Lab's means and methods. The lab in question if ISO certified must have documented training records for the lab's processes, along with corrective and preventive actions based on internal and external audits. This could be a gold mine if its not to late. The key is whether the lab techs are competent individuals...not the lab being certified, and that their training records where current during the testing period.

~ Paul

Anonymous said...

When Lemond told Landis to come clean, Landis did not deny he doped; he instead said, essentially, "what would would it do," and "it would hurt a lot of my friends." Sounds like an admission of guilt to me.

Anonymous said...

That's what LeMond says Floyd said. No proof on God's green earth that those words came out of Landis' mouth so don't get ahead of yourself there.

Anonymous said...

Sounds like an admission of guilt to me also. You have to consider the source, though. Greg Lemond has a public record of lying for over 15 years. If Landis is lying, it isn't documented yet. You have to take Floyd's side on the credibility here.

cam said...

<< This could be a gold mine if its not to late. >>

Paul -- nobody's paying attention. everyone is so devasted by what LeMond said, true or not, that no one can really concentrate on this witness....

mistake by USADA to call her *after* LeMond? or intentional???

Anonymous said...

For those wondering: Lemond would have made the disclosure to Landis in an effort to establish a feeling of intimacy and to induce a similarly intimate disclosure by Landis. It's an individual judgment call on whether or not he accomplished what he wanted: an admission of doping. And that turns in part on your evaluation of his credibility and accuracy of memory. None of that was tested in cross.

Anonymous said...

There may be a number of pigs in this process but Christiane Ayotte isn't one of them. She knows here business and can't be bought. She'll call it like it is.

I look forward to hearing what she has to say.


Anonymous said...

Why does Floyd have such a creep as his manager? Because Floyd is a creep.

Not as creepy as the amount of bending over that takes place in the comment-section of this blog though.

Anonymous said...

Please refresh my distorted thinking, Why did Greg Lemond take so much (written) abuse from the Floyd Supporters (Himself, those closest to him, and all his little supporters chatting about on this blog)?

Because he speaks out against doping in cycling? Because he testified that Floyd Landis admitted that he doped? Because he made Floyd Landis mad months ago, for encouraging him to come clean?

American cycling didn't reach an all time low because of anything Lemond did. Take a look at Landis' post on DPF. Now, this phone call to Lemond last night. Whew. That's playing dirty in anyone's book.

Add to that, the incessant press releases from Henson and Jacobs about results leaks to the press, lab ineptitude, conspiracies here-conspiracies there, expert witnesses being locked out of the lab, results being tampered with.


Now, it is much more believable that someone from the Landis team “leaked” the results to L’Equipe. These/you people will stop at nothing for what … to get your idol/client off free from a doping charge that he is 99.999% likely to be guilty of.

He tested positive T/E for one stage of the TDF
He tested to have significant traces of banned artificial testosterone for numerous stages of the TDF
He improved his performance from being a very good support rider to being a top 9 rider in the TDF to winning 4 stage races in a six month period

The truth is also now coming out about how the additional “B” samples were tested. Who observed what. Who was “locked out” and why. The Landis defense and p.r. team have absolutely NO Credibility, No Ethics or No Decency in my book, from what I have read.

This “case” has been 6 months of guerrilla tactics of attack, attack, attack, accuse, accuse, accuse, lie, lie, lie I am so glad that all this is public. I just hope people are smart enough to cut through and see the truth!

And, by the way, make my day and prove me wrong, Suh, Jacobs, Henson, FFF. Stop blowing smoke and start proving something.

Anonymous said...

cam ... Hopefully Arnie is reading this comment about the lab's prior ISO audit finding (internal or external). Safety and Training are sometimes the weakest business functions, and it could open up the lab's Pandora's Box!

I realize the effect of LeMond's appearance, but the game clock is still running. Its not over until its over.

~ Paul

Anonymous said...

what a joke...looks to me like USADA is trying to take the focus off the science. Why else start a s^!# storm then dive straight back into the science. Total PR game and puts Landis in a lose lose...regardless of what he says it hurts his image.

What was the rest of the conversation with Lemond? Is there some selective hearing envolved...was there more to the context in which Landis say's "what good would it do"...

Great tactic USADA - you had to dig deep to get that dirty..I have zero respect for what you have done. drag two guys in the mud to win a case...the roos in, the gloves are off...and your sucessfully showing your color and bias. it's not about finding truth, but your version of it...I hope FL won clean, I hope he can prove it...but you have single handedly brought down a sport.
Sleep well!! BT in H-town

Anonymous said...

4:17 Thanks. About time someone really spoke up here. I agree with you, and more importantly, the hard evidence of Landis' guilt. And as to Lemond, what incentive does he have to make up a story about Landis? Landis obviously has all the incentive in the world to lie, as I believe he has. And as to Landis' manager, whether or not Landis was a part of what he did to Lemond, it seems pretty clear Landis' manager tried to intimidate Lemond and is guilty of witness tampering. From what I gather, Suh was pretty disgusted with Geohagan. He should be similarly disgusted with his client.

Anonymous said...

"And as to Lemond, what incentive does he have to make up a story about Landis?"

A career in the IOC? Or one of the -ADA's? Maybe he's been bought? Maybe he's doing the prosecution a favor in exchange for something in return?

We know nothing.
You know nothing.
Let's all keep speculating though. Making my day go by that much faster.

Timm said...

I hope someone is keeping up with the current testimony. The side show is over for now, I'd like to know what is going on with Dr. Ayotte.

It is amazing to me though that USADA's case was so bad they had to resort to this, and with our tax money to boot! The Arbs have now shown their true colors as well, this is now officially a railroad! There is no search for truth in this hearing, its a disgrace.

Anonymous said...

She has rung the bell.... Calibrated ISO equipment must have a documentation file that records deviation and repairs.

Arnie...get their ISO manual: Calibration, Training and Maintenance Polies and Standard Procedures. The door is wide open... she is running in circles.

` Paul

Anonymous said...

Definitely looks like a railroad. Perhaps, a Department of Justice investigation is needed. Hey, aren't Armstrong and the President buddies? Maybe Lance can call in a favor and Bush can get the DOJ to bring the truth to light. I am thoroughly disgusted to see tax dollars working this way.