Tuesday, May 15, 2007

Hearing - Tuesday, Mongangu Part Really II

Biology having been taken care of, we're now back to Mlle. Mongongu, and the new interpreter is the most popular person in the building. Bill has been relieved of the play by play, and will return to color.

We're going to run until 6:oopm

MR DUNN continues.

Q: at the time you were doing the analysis with Ms. Frelat, did you know which was Mr. Landis' and which was the one brought by Dr. Aquilera?

A: No, blind.


Q: Did you know how many aquilera brought?

A: yes, 3.

q: so there were 10?

a: yes.

q: how many did you analyze?

a: 6.

q: and you had no idea how many were Mr. Landis'?

a: no, didn't know at all?

q: no one told you?

a: no

q: when did you find out?

a: learned this weekend.

q: 2 or three days ago?

a: yes.

q: uncertainty range for delta delta being 0.8. How is .8 determined?

a: we perform an evaluation of the methodology.

q: was that done in a study lndd performed?

a: yes

q: did you participate in that study?

a: yes.

q: when was it done?

a: over a long period of time?

LNDD 456, exhibit 26.

q: does this contain the study?

a: yes.

q: what page is it?

a: lndd 0456

q: also the basis for 0.5 on a single metabolite delta value?

a: no.

q: different page?

a: yes

q: what page?

a: lndd 0459

q: chain of custody for A, the aliquots you handled. Please look at B pack EX 25, We know you were not involved in the B except for validation of Frelat, but turn to USADA 253 to USADA 257. What are they?

a: the chain of posession of the A and B bottles.

q: 253 and 254 are the Coc of the A and B, right?

a: yes.

q: next three pages are CoC of the aliquots?

a: yes.

q: what is your operatior number

a: 49

q: go to page lost it.

q what were you doing with the bottle?

a: it shows the insertion into the bottle.

q: making an aliquote?
a: yes

q: what time?
a: 22 jul 11:20 am.

q: page 256. you had possession, and you see your number there?

a: yes.

q: day and time?
a: 22 jul 11:20

q: same time?
a: yes.

q: then took to the sample prep room?
a: yes.

q: anyone else have posession?
a: no, i was the only one who had posession.

q: and that's true until fractionation was completed on 23-jul at 3:25pm?
a: no one else?

q: is the room behind a locked door?
a: yes.

q: you left an aliquot on the solid phase extraction machine overnight?
did any outsider have access to the sample?

a: well the people who have access to the sample prep room are my colleagues.

q: outsiders?
a: no.

q: to your knowledge, did anyone else touch the sample?
a: no.

q: to the B sample that M. Frelat analysed. Do you know if the same is true about the posession of the B sample for the IRMS?

[objection, speculation]

q: another subject. returning to the other B analyses. We established two showed positive.

EX 107. This is a table summarizing results of the other Bs. Hilight 825524 (sp?)

q: this was stage 20, you now know. -4.96
a: yes.

q: second sample we talked about was 825428, from Jul 18, after stage 15, -5.06

[ THESE BRACKET S17 TESTS of -6.14 and -6.39 ]

EX 87, '429 reanalysis.

Q: does this show exogenous at -4.80?
a: yes?

q: includes 0.8?
a: yes.

q: so on that basis, you concluded positive?
a: yes.

back to 107, the '429. Showing 5 in a row.

stage 19, jul 22

exhibit 88, page 1106; table shows 5aA at -4.09.

back to 107; sample of 13-jul is positive at -4.09.

q: based on your experience, all 6 values of those 5 stages reflect presence of exo-t?
a: yes.

[ note: 7/14 test not positive ]

Return to logfiles Suh used with Brenna. More copies being made.

q: GDC1056 through 1076, we'll call it the "log". Dates are April 2007. So these don't represent anything to the stage 17 analysis to the best of your knowledge?

a: no.

q: S17 was run using the OS/2 Optima S/w.
a: yes.

q: For the other seven samples, that was done on the Masslynx software?
a: yes.

q: Mr. Landis represented this log to have been produced by lndd during the time Dr. Botre was at LNDD observing the reprocessing of the files on May 4-5. Dr. Botre representing USADA, first to download the files, then they came back to watch you reprocess the data files.

a: yes.

q: and you did that in their presence, first using OS2 Optima.
a: yes.

q: the first time you did it the same way you did on S17 samples in 2006?
a: yes.

q: was there ever a time during this re-analysis that you attempted something 20 times but were unable to do so?
a: no.

q: 15 times?
a: no. no such recollection.

q: Nothing you did 20 times?
a: no.

q: So what Mr. Suh said in his opening statement was a mistake?
a: yes.

q: so what you did generally with the OS2 processing involved sometimes involved manual corrections for background and peak starts and stops?
a: yes.

q: tell me what you did with the OS2 originally last summer, this time, and what Dr. Davis asked you to do, and then with the Masslynx software. Not in great detail.

a: OK. When we reprocessed the results, I was asked to bring out 3 reports on the data. One dealing with the automatic reprocessing, the normal verification, and third with the subtraction of the background. And then placed the data on the Masslynx machine, and reprocessed using that.

q: that's it?
a: yes.

q: looking at the log. Have you ever seen this log before?
a: I saw it ... at the time of the reprocessing of the data.

q: ever before?
a: no.

q: ever printed something similar?
a: no.

q: you were using masslynx for that analysis?
a: yes.

q: what were you doing at the time that some of these entries appear to have been made? Let's start at 11:48:08, April 17. It says "isoprime method stop, wait till running" Let's forget that one. The one I meant was "commencing 1704 mixcalirms01" and then at 12:17:43 is says "commencing ..." which seems to suggest the same thing is running. Can you explain what you were doing and why those log entries are there?

a: If I look here at 11:48, there was no acquiting of the mixcal irms because the isoprime had stopped.

q: so was any data recorded?
a: no there was no data?

q: then what happened at 11:49?
a: then I injected a mixcal irms and then at 12:16 I injected a second and that was to charge the liner of the instrument.

q: then down at 11:49:43 mixcal irms s01, then at 12:17:43 also mixcal irms s01. Why are there two?
a: as i said before, I charged the liner, injected the solution and then did the injection to perform the verification that corresponds to the 12:17

q: so you are just priming the machine?
a: yes.

q: were you ever intendingn to collect data from that injection?
a: no absolutely not.

q: so the second entry is the run you intended to collect data from?
a: yes.

q: so you were not erasing previously collected data intended to be used for the analysis?
a: no.

q: just an injection to prime the machine?
a: yes.


q: Let's look at another sheet, GDC 1057. 12:33:21, "commencing analysis" mixcalIRMSS02.
a: yes.

q: Previous page at 12:06, If you compare "commencing..." is this the same explanation as the other one?
a: yes, two injections and then restarted it.

q: so the first time is a simply a prime of the machine, never intended to generate data?
a: yes; no.

q: these are just examples, I'm sure there are many others. Page 1058. Look at 19:52:43, commencing 1704 blu 1F2. Fraction 2 of the blank?
a: yes.

q: 20:24:29, "commencing..." explanation?
a: at 19;52 the analysis did not have a complete process because there was no injection; if we go back during the sequence of the injections, I have to add the liquid nitrogen in a cold trap so the remainder of the injections may take place. At that point I pause on the level of the sequences because I have to wait until the last injection is finished. Then I fill up the cold trap with LN. So I have to leave the trap to become stable and then when I stop the pause, then it goes to the sample that will then be injected following that. At this point in this specific case, and so when you start the 1704, the software open the sample.

q: let me restate. during this analysis, the LN needed to be refilled?
a: yes.

q: so you had to stop the run, refill, and rerun?
a: yes, waiting until it was stabilized, and continue on with the sequence?

q: any data lost?
a: no.

q: one or two more.

[ It's 5:40; probably no cross today. ]

q: another log, 11:26:19 , mixcalAcetate01 commencing; 12:22:45, same description. Is there another? Please explain?
a: because there must have been an inversion on the level of the vial standards (?); when I performed the 3 mixcal irms, and then I add another line for mixcal acetate, and if I forget to increase the bottle, and then it doesn't inject the acetate, but the mixcal irms's, then the the mixcal acetates do not correspond, because what was injected was the alkanes. So when I realize that has happened, I restart the right bottle.

q: summarizing -- a bottle that got mixed up, a little vial, you saw the data was wrong.
a: yes.

q: then fixed the problem and re-ran to generate correct data.
a: yes.

q: now we don't have enough time to go into more of these. Did any of these cause you to -- strike.

q: you didn't mix up the bottles, you copied the wrong line of text?
a: yes, I didn't increment a copy and paste on the level of the instrument I finished a copy and on the level of the bottle, it stayed the same as on the alkane.

q: we can put that aside. Minute to confer?

[ Landis is smiling ]


Brunet: we give you an A+, thank you.

Suh: would she like to read the briefs?
All: yes.

Witnesses tomorrow: We'll go back and look again. Ms. Frelat, Dr. Ayotte, various LNDD personnel, maybe Esther, Rudi and probably not beyond that.



swimyouidiot said...

Anybody interested, make sure you read the newest piece from Michael Hiltzik of the L.A.Times. The link is


That's all one address, no spaces. Sorry I don't know how to format it for this comments page. Hopefully you can cut and paste.

Hiltzik says Suh scored big in his cross examination of Brenna earlier. This kind of article helps you not get lost in the blurr of the questioning. Some say Hiltzik is biased toward Landis, but he IS a Pulitzer Prize winner and knows this case very well.

Anonymous said...

Don't need to be an expert to see that USADA case has not been good so far. The bumbling professor. The well spoken expert, with the $1 million grant, that refuses to disagree with USADA and agreed the data files were over-written and the intepretation fiasco.

Who amoung this group has been compelling? Answer no one. So, if any of Landis experts make a compelling case, and hold up on cross, they look more credibile.

Of course, this assumes McLaren and Brunet have not already made up their mind.

Brian said...

Ms. Mongongu is the only one that has given difinitive answers....I anxiously await the cross.


gstead said...

Hue and DB: great coverage again today.

I thought I'd contribute in my own small way by formatting the LA Times link posted above: Click here for the LA Times story.

gstead said...

Well, it didn't take long to mess that up -- I linked to another Landis story by mistake :)

I don't see an edit feature, so here is the intended link: Key witness gives conflicting testimony in Landis case

Anonymous said...

For future reference, to link large URLs:


Anonymous said...


What is expected for the rest of the day.

Another question, what is the latest with DPF?

Anonymous said...

Not that I mind, but I don't understand why USADA is leading off their case in such a defensive manner. So far their witnesses seem to be mainly for the purpose of defending the system and the lab against public criticisms leveled by the Landis team prior to the hearing. It's like they are presenting their rebuttal now, even though Landis hasn't even presented his case yet.

I thought they would have started out with the assumption that the lab work was good and the measurements correct, and bring in witnesses to explain why that could only mean one thing - that Landis doped.

Is this a common courtroom tactic - to lead with your weak stuff and finish with the strong stuff?

~ Cub

Anonymous said...

No, it's a tactical mistake made by a bloated bureaucracy that has never been challenge. They think 158 - 0 is becuase they are good. They have been going against freshman and sophomore teams in the past, this is the varisty squad.

Let me offer a radical opinon.

The case COULD, repeat COULD be over tomorrow.

Mongongu threw out a ton of stats and procedures. IS everytthing she said right? They was an awful lot of information she threw out.

I have not seen the afternoon video yet, did she refer to notes? (saw the morning video and she did not). Is everything she said correct? Are you sure?

Thanks to USADA's translator incomptence, Jacobs, Scott and Suh have all night to pour over this testimony, not 15 minutes.

In 24 hours she will come off as very competent and the process will look clean, good and Landis will have even more of an uphill fight. Or, Suh will have her re-canting all kinds of things she said today and leave everyone with the impression the operator did not know what the hell she was doing.

Yesterday Brenna look good and smart and his testimony looked damaging. Suh made him look like a bought and paid for hack after sleeping on his testimony.

Tomorrow Suh will have her so confused she'll be unsure she works for the LNDD. IF so, Young should be fired for allowing this to happen. Putting her on the stand to spit out a million facts is very very dangerous gambit for USADA's case.

Why do you think Suh, Scoot and Landis were smiling

These are just opinions, thoughts?

Anonymous said...

I honestly haven't followed this case closely at ALL, but I remember hearing maybe months ago the name Cynthia Mongongu as one of the lab techs at LNDD who worked on Floyd's samples. How is it possible she JUST found out this weekend that she handled his samples? I find that VERY hard to believe.

Anonymous said...

Maybe Mongongu isn't interresting by riders and sport. She makes his job. Don't forget that she has run 400 testing in last years, around 2/ weeks !!!