Tuesday, May 15, 2007

Hearing - Tuesday Signoff

USOC has put up the witness list for tomorrow, and Order 2, now improved with reasons.

Order 2 was the motion in limine, trying to get the new B's disallowed. They're in. We get some information about the disputes over issues and access. What we learn from this is:

  • Landis was asking for frequent linearity and stability runs. LNDD said no way, we only do them once a month. Aquilera agreed. We learned earlier that Brenna does linearity at least once a week.
  • B sample observers don't normally get to observe linearity and stability runs, so they didn't here.
  • Some materials asked for were not given, because they aren't normal B sample things. They are discovery things, and while the panel ordered them produced, the purpose of the meeting wasn't discovery, it was observation. So while you are there, you can't get what they ordered produced. Go figure.
  • Mr. Dunn was accused of stopping conversations so Dr. Davis wouldn't hear.
  • The panel decides that Scott agreed to something he would never have agreed to, so that's why he wasn't let in.
It's another 2-1, Campbell dissenting, but the dissent is not filed.

What seems to be happening:
  • USADA is trying to show single metabolite positive on a bunch of stages clumped around S17.
  • USADA seems to be collapsing on the 3.0 vs. 3.8 issue with LNDD admitting the 3.8 criteria that Brenna fought so hard to try to save for USADA in the morning. USADA will still argue the rules say 3.0, and the lab is wrong to use 3.8, but that may not get far.
  • USADA is continuing to argue that errors in one part of a chromatogram don't affect the rest.
  • Landis scored against Brenna with the log file issues.
  • USADA has tried to rebut points made by Landis in one cross during direct of another witness. Here, there are trying to use Monongu to salvage the log file points made against Brenna in the morning. She admitted to starting and stopping the machine for a variety of reasons, none clearly documented in any of the logs or test documentation. There was one at the end involving something about a wrong vial, or wrong vial number, and another involving refilling the liquid nitrogen. For the latter, she has to wait till is stabilizes. How long? How do you know it's stable? Is the LN fill documented in the pack anywhere?
  • This interpreter is very good, better than the ones I suffered with in the past.
  • The Landis side seemed to be looking forward to cross examination tomorrow. Will we see Suh the shark, or Suh the seducer?

9 comments:

Cheryl from Maryland said...

Judge Hue and TBV, thanks again. You guys rock.

Seems to me that Ms. Monogau's testimony does not invalidate the frequent running of the samples - Dr. Brennau confirmed the multiple runnings. She just did "what people told her". My husband says his office calls frequent testing "testing for compliance."

Just curious, if the sample preparation was 1.5 days, does that mean 1.5 days under non-refridgeration? I mean, if the sample prep sat 1.5 days on one's lab bench, is there still no contamination due to the prep?

Anonymous said...

What is happening here is Young/USADA are secrewing up. Remember the sequence. USADA presents, Landis Presents, USADA rebuts. No Landis rebut.

USADA should have presented why the tests mean he's a doper. Period, nothing more. Let Landis argue mistakes, attack his experts. Then, what left hanging from Landis presentation, bring the LNDD employees and experts to rebut narrow arguments from Landis experts. Not up front about the entire process.

Landis' wiki approach is working better than he could ever imagine. USADA is structuring its case to rebut the public defense. That's exactly what Landis needed USADA to do and they fell into the trap. USADA has opened the entire process to scrunity. This allows Landis to punch holes int eh procedures and he is. By next week, this process will look so bad, it will be hard for Brunet and McLaren to convict him.

Regarding this afternoon's testimony, Mongongu threw out a ton of stats and procedures. Is everything she said right? They was an awful lot of information presented through an intepretator.

Further, 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. And they don't appear done. They have four other analytical chemist on the witness list.

Why do you think Suh, Scott and Landis were smiling.

Anonymous said...

The USADA keeps getting shot full of holes, but are 2 of the arbs listening? Or do they even care? I guess time will tell...
Mike
Green MTN.

Michael said...

Didn't someone mention a long time ago about the USADA going through with this hole 'charade' knowing they didn't have a case, but would end up blaming the lab for what's happening to Landis? And saying all they had to go on was what they received in the doc package?

Tomorrow should be very interesting.

I wonder if Tygart is getting nervous about ever getting his 'new' job at USADA????

Anonymous said...

Mongongu is not a fan of cycling, did not know it was Landis’ sample until a few days ago.

Let's accept this as true. What does it mean?

I finished watching the afternoon tape and she looks like she doesn't have a care in the world. Nervous? In France, with 35 hour work weeks and labor laws that guarantee her employment for life. Why should she be?

She's thrilled she got a free trip to Malibu.

Tomorrow she will happily tell Suh she completely screwed everything. As everyone gasps, she won’t understand the meaning and her main concern will be whether to have sushi or Italian for dinner.

My point is she hardly looks/acts like a chemist that is testifying for her reputation. Where is the nervousness/sweat on the brow? Lady, this is your career, act like you care!

Fact is she is and I don't think she realizes it. Further, not knowing the ramifications of her work (did not find out it was Landis samples until a few days ago) further suggests a lackadaisical attitude about what he does.

“Hey, look at here, 5A metabolite at -5”. Does she really understand the ramifications of that result in that lab working under a WADA certification? She had no idea she was in the middle of one of the biggest sports stories on the planet (over the last year) until two days ago.

This is exactly how mistakes are created.

swimyouidiot said...

I just read the new "Order 2" - and since DPF is apparently still down, I want to note a couple things here.

Words reveal a lot about the way people are thinking. In the very first paragraph it says "On March 17th 2007, the majority of the Panel issued the Interlocutory
Award." Notice it does not say a majority, but the majority. As if Brunet and McLaren now constitute the assumed majority of the panel. Actually, on March 17, 2007, the panel issued the award, as it says in paragraphs 17, 18, 19 and in other places of the original order. Subtle, but important turn of the language there.

Also, look at paragraph 3. "The majority of the Panel further reserved its 'right to affirm...'" and it refers to paragraph 23 of the original order. But paragraph 23 of the original order says "The Panel in making this advance ruling reserves the right to affirm or re-determine the ruling..."

They misrepresented their own language to make it fit what they did in practice.

Sick. Just sick. Couldn't they hide their bias a little better?

Anonymous said...

ORG here ....

Campbell's dissent has not been filed yet. I hope he wrote one. I dying to read it.

Maybe he even commented on this

("Eightzero") said...

Is USADA's plan merely to go through the motions here and perhaps just get as much on the record for the subsequent CAS appeal? Not a bad strategy. They can claim they didn't have enough funding to do this "right" so they need more money.

Anonymous said...

Swim,

Good catch on the language. It would have been written more carefully than their frist second Order and it certainly suggets that the author saw the panel as having two elements: the majority and Campbell.

There will be more to come and it will be interesting to see if the split is consistent and how they refer to themselves.
pcrosby