Tuesday, May 22, 2007

Hearing - Tue: Davis Direct III

Coming back in. Don't see Davis -- oops, there he is in the witness box, leaning back. What up?

Don't think they're even going to finish direct today, at this rate, much less start cross.

SUH: we are trying to load the 167-2, hoping it will be done, so we'll move on and come back, should be able to fit it in.


q: describe the process technicians use when they did manual reprocessing of S17 data?
a: it was somewhat variable with individuals and within individuals. Peak ends were dragged and moved; there was look at ratio traces, and removal of points used by background subtraction, adding and deleting points, whle there was continual reanalsis of ratios.

q: what do you mean reanalyze?
a: [ lost point of question and answer, something with software options ]


Picture shows a chromatogram with peaks, and shows auto start-stop marks, and background.

a: LNDD goes into menu, selects drag, moves start stop line.

q: have an impact on the isotopic values.
a: yes, 10s of mils. SOP says can have large effect.

q: show any other manual processing during the reprocessing.

BARNETT: please mark as exhibits.

Draws 3 peaks, maked, with ratio trace above

a: with BG sub enabled, a polynomial best-fit is done from 44/45 trace to remove background. Problem with Masslynx developemt was that we lost the code for the background subtraction in the Optima software.
This is due to corporate takeovers.

q: what lab staff would do is use the drag option and manually add data points to "better" reflect the background, reanalyze, and get another best-fit line. This can shift results by 20 per mil easily.

GDC 970

q: recognize?
a: f3 fraction.

q: describe the background trace on the OS2 program, and it's use
a: it there. as to its effect on the ratio, no one knows.

GDC 964

q: point out how you would use the 44/45 trace.
a: if you have peaks where mumble through the baseline, mumble At lndd, you'll see these boxes, here, here and here, maybe here. These are all data points the technicians have placed and we can't see, then they reprocessed the whole analysis.

a: by going to file/save params, they could reprocess and get the same numbers.

q: if you had your program, could you show how this works?
a: yes.

q: this last point - are you suggesting the os/2 allows you save the data from the first manual reprocessing?
a: yes.

q: so there is nothing to keep you from keeping the record?
a: no

q: so there is no reason you couldn't reproduce results on reprocessing?
a: no.

q: you could place the points the same place?
a: the software would do it for you. There would be a data file, and a method file. It's not a true audit trail, but you can see what the last change was. With Masslynx, you can save 4 per data file.

q: so when LNDD determined the results from S17, the program had a way to save points, so they could have been exactly reproduced?
a: yes.

q: never done?
a: yes.

q: when watching lndd techs reprocessing, did they do it over and over agin?
a: yes.

q: did you note them?
a: yes, here's a chart showing what I noted them doing.

q: what?
a: number of times peak end changed, new point to BG trace, BG point dragged, times reprocessed.

[ bunch of changes -- need to see chart to see the details ]

q: in your opinion, why was this being done?
a: she was struggling to get the line to fit the way she liked. When I asked what she was doing, she said she was "using her experience"

q: did this change the CIR results?
a: yes, significantly. sometimes so much they gave up and reloaded.

q: what are these?
a: The A(?) block are Frelat's. She made some setup errors, and reloaded a few times.

q: are these numbers the times they tried to adjust of correct the values to bring within the previous values?
a: I don't think they were trying to get the numbers; I think they were trying to fit lines and peaks the best they could. Don't know the motivation. Asked repeatedly what they were doing, and was answered they were using their experience.

q: were the CIRs changing.
a: yes, significant as stated in SOP.

Q: you watched Mongongu and Frelat conduct their procedures.
a: yes.

q: did you see them during retesting?
a: yes.

q: concusion about their ability and competence to operate the instruments.
a: they clearly did not understand the instrument. I had to help them load the software on the machine. They were obviously trying to help each other during the reprocessing and did not generally know how the software worked.

GDC 1356.1, wolfgang's relative retention time chart.

[ description ]

q: looking at these values, were you able to see the relative times for the A and B were substantially off?
a: yes.

q: from the perspective of someone familiar with the isoprime, does it affect your opinion of the reliability of results?
a: yes, you can't be sure they've identified the right peaks, the numbers will be meaningless.

q: as part of your experience with isoprime instruments, have you had opportunity and responsibility to review chromatography?
a: yes.

q: does it matter?
a: chromatography is about separating. If you don't separate, you have wrong results.

q: show some CG's, LNDD 1052, LNDD 1110 (EX 88) F3 from S11. Quality?
a: very poor. This is not a clean baseline. this period of the FID is not flat. This suggests something bleeding from the inlet port. Highly unusual. I see no baseline separation for the alleged internal standard.

q: do you know what the isotropic of this area here is?
a: no clue.

q: lndd 870, Lndd 894, seen this? stage, fraction?

[ dunn looks back, grim. ]

a: f3 of S15.

q: opinion of chromatography here?
a: looks pretty poor, at the printout. hard to tell without being able to zoom into it. I'd be very cautious using results from that.

q: LNDD 968 and 991. opinion?
a: the MSD looks a little better, but can't zoom in; co-eluting peaks; peak 13's tail is identified as a peak. getting a valid isotope n umber from that would be impossible.

q: [ lost page id's ]: opinion?
a: pretty poor. look at central peaks , like 11; strange integration. The sw has decided to draw line here; it's not valid; on the other side these are all co-eluting. Very difficult to say you could use numbers.

BRUNET: 5:00, will adjourn

BARNETT/YOUNG: not confirmed rebuttal witnesses.

SUH: going to call any?

YOUNG: expect to call Brenna.

ADJOURNED until 9:30 am.


cam said...

how is this reading? i lost my slide function a while ago.

is it working?

Anonymous said...

As long as Davis gets to do his show it suits me to have him do it tomorrow and put USADA/WADA in the positin of not having an night to prepare their cross.

swimyouidiot said...

I don't think they intended to start cross today, did they. They were going to let USADA work with the software on the numbers over night, right? Then come back at Davis' tomorrow.

Anonymous said...

pc, we overlapped. I'm sure USADA won't allow that to happen.


Anonymous said...

Davis must be getting paid a pretty penny for his work (how much by the way--does anybody know?). But it's going to be interesting to see if he still looks this good during cross.

Anonymous said...

Anybody else notice that some of the points that were disabled from the background correction looked a whole lot like legitimate background? Basically, she was removing the good stuff so the bad stuff would get counted more.


Sachi Wilson said...

We'll find out how much he is paid during cross, never fear!

pommi said...

anon4:41: You can only hope that Young has an excellent day tomorrow, unlike yesterday; otherwise it looks pretty bleak for USADA and LNDD. But I highly doubt that USADA can touch Davis either way.

Anonymous said...

ruling was that the software show had to be tonight or it wouldn't be allowed.

Anonymous said...

I agree USADA/Wada will want to avoid it, but if they have the data and the software to play with overnight, I am not sure how they can effectively complain. This train has not made stops to give any substantial accomodation to the parties yet and tomorrow they have to bring it into the station. I suppose they could let the direct continue tomorrow and then adjourn for an indefinite period to some presently unknown location so that USADA/WADA can try to pull its act together for cross and rebuttal. Given that USADA/WADA built this to be a trial by surprise and trap, they should have an uphill battle to get the advantage. Not impossible, but would further underscore the lack of fairness in this entire process.

Anonymous said...

a: they clearly did not understand the instrument. I had to help them load the software on the machine. They were obviously trying to help each other during the reprocessing and did not generally know how the software worked.

Wow...just wow

Sachi Wilson said...

Unless USADA has some rabbits out there that know something we don't know (and Davis doesn't know), LNDD and USADA is dead in the water.

You said it, Anon 4:55. This is shattering.

MX said...

Serious questions:

After all of this, is there still a legitimate way for Brunet to justify voting to convict Landis? What justification would he use?

Anonymous said...

"using their experience" alludes to a history of incompetence, not just a one-time failure to follow the proper procedures.

Sadly, we will never know how many false-positives have been determined by this lab.

Anonymous said...

So, they adjourn. Does that mean that they cut off what USADA/WADA clearly feared? Earlier comment said computer demonstration either done tonight or barred. The rush to the station is unseemly. The panel should at least pretend that they want to be informed and go into the evening unless Pepperdine has a problem with it.

Anonymous said...

Sometimes letting someone search for the truth and letting someone find the truth are two very different things.

Go ahead USADA let the truth out, let her free.

It won't hurt that bad.

Let the healing begin.

beeble said...

Keeping in mind there's 2 sides to every story BUT...

I feel badly for the 2 women at the lab who obviously weren't trained properly, however, this sounds like borderline fiducial misconduct on the part of the lab.

It certainly should also call into question all of the results run by either lab tech on that machine since it was setup improperly.

I am not a lawyer, just a geek.

Anonymous said...

Let the healing begin?

More like Let the ROOSTER CROW!!

What's more roostered now? Floyd, or the lab?!

Anonymous said...

Mr. Hiltzik,

Do you have enough for a book yet?

Anonymous said...

I would be surprised if USADA and WADA didn't face numerous lawsuits/litigation over this clear negligence and malfeasance from any athlete(whether truely guilty or innocent) who might have just accepted the penality rather than try to fight. Much of this has never seen the light of day before. Devestating for USADA. No wonder Catlin and Scott jumped ship. If USADA/WADA had any honor they would publically appologize to Mr. Landis, reimburse him for every expense and for his lost revenue and reinstate him immeadiatly.

tbv@trustbut.com said...

Hiltzik says, "maybe for a novel." Also, he has some contractual things for other books, so maybe not anytime soon.


Michael said...

Guys, let's not get too carried away. Until the media, ie Cyclingnews, Velonews, USA Today, French media start writing about what's really going on, most of the general public doesn't know about the case. Although, Cyclingnews posted a favorable piece about Landis.

If anyone with any honesty reads all of the testimony, there's no way they could find Landis guilty of doping. But what scares me is that i have a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach that Hamilton (sorry to bring him up) went through the same thing with USADA and was sure he'd win his case. The two arbiters who decided that TH was guilty, never (to my experience) had to defend there reasoning. Only Campbell documented why he was on TH side.

So...it ain't over until the fat lady sings AND I'M HOPING SHE SINGS FLOYD'S SONG, but I'm not that hopeful yet...

Anonymous said...

"So, they adjourn. Does that mean that they cut off what USADA/WADA clearly feared? Earlier comment said computer demonstration either done tonight or barred. The rush to the station is unseemly. The panel should at least pretend that they want to be informed and go into the evening unless Pepperdine has a problem with it.

TBV's running commentary suggested that Landis was suppposed to give USADA the software after 5:00 so they would have all night to play with it (apparently they didn't have it already?!). I don't think the demo had to be done by then. I think that may have been the reason for stopping precisely at 5:00 - so USADA would get all the overnight analysis time they were promised.

Now, where do they find a 1986 vintage 486 PC with OS/2 at 5:00 in Malibu?\

~ Cub

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

After looking at Dr. Davis's charts about the number of times that they reprosessed, I think Suh's statement of 20 times in his opening (that USADA tried to refute several times) was actually conservative on his part.


Anonymous said...

ok, i actually had to work today so i was checked out of the proceedings. i understand that two women from the lab messed up the tests (ray charles could see that). but what's the story with Davis and his magic software? what it is expected to show? thanks.

Anonymous said...

Michael at 5:34 pm:

You are correct. Look at the headline regarding today's testimony on cyclingnews, "USADA takes lead on penultimate stage". The article focuses mainly on the Landis cross. They comment on the testimony of Davis to some extent, but start it out by saying he "stole" photos on his camera phone. To me it looks like the last 2 days have been great for Landis. I can't wait to read about tomorrow!

Anonymous said...

Anon 6:16,

There was nothing magic about Davis's software, it was the same software that LNDD used to reproses the data. He was going to show how easily you could cause a major change in the results by manual manipulation.


Anonymous said...

So let me get this straight. Davis helps load the software and then has to stand behind a piece of Scotch tape on the floor!

Rereading Ms Mongongu's testimony about being flustered ("accosted") on the B sample takes on a whole new understanding in light of Davis' testimony.

Now we know why she "needed to be able to concentrate." coz the results weren't doing what they needed to.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Cheryl from Maryland said...

Wow -- just wow. I really feel the head of the LNDD and his senior staff should take the major hits for setting up LNDD as the equivalent of a fast food restaurant (with fewer standards), especially with people's reputations and careers on the line.

Thanks, TBV for the commentary as I missed the afternoon hearing. And as I have to go to meetings and training tomorrow (in a new software program, but not for chromatograms), I'll miss everything and have to rely on you guys.