Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Hearing - Wed: Davis Direct IV

Milling around; I'm going to do this from the press room so I can take pictures of the exhibit screen. It looks like we are going to get the software demo, as it's been flashed on the screen here while they set up.

We were asked to give sartorial descriptions. Landis is in a light suit, medium blue shirt, yellow tie;
Scott his accustomed darker blue shirt. Young has a red tie. Barnett has a darker shirt. Both are in lighter suits. Hope that makes Futterman happy. He is.

The panel is present, but the buzz is loud.

BRUNET: Welcome


BRUNET: Mr. Campbell had a birdie in golf. Time: landis 1:40; USADA 9:46. Is there a confirmation of something about stopping in the middle of the day? Software issue?


YOUNG: Computer arrived a little after 8pm, needed the password, got after 10pm; doesn't work without the printer. Weren't able to do much with it.

JACOBS: Parts of the software work without password; manual data processing possible. Passwords were default micromass/micromass.

[ no ruling about software demo? ]

q: is there any difference between 1.67-4 and 1.67-2 for reprocessing?
a: no

q: how do you know?
a: I was present for the releases; had only to do with hardware interfaces (head amplifiers).

q: GDC 1372, what is this.
a: printout of datafile to demonstrate. These are the automatic results.

q: times?
a: computer times in UK time.

q: GDC 1373, what is this?
a: same file processed on a different computer with the -2

q: are the same numbers?
a: yes.

OBJECTION: they weren't able to get the old version loaded?

q: why show this?
a: to show the automatic values are identical in both versions.

q: yesterday, said reprocessing can effect results,
a: yes.

q: and you can show this on the -2 software?
a: yes.

a: The OS is warp v3; first release 1987; Micromass selected it instead of DOS and windows 3.1.

q: how to you open something to work on it?
a: editor, command line, instrument control prog, offline program, and "dp" for data processing, no password needed.

q: to find data,
a: this data is something from Lawrence Berkeley Labs; don't know what it is exactly.

q: what do we see now without the FID
a: traces from three detectors, in 3 colors. Major is 44, minor 1 is 45, and minor 2 is irrelevant. Each peak is a compound, and two flat peaks for reference gas. Zoom in on a peak. See three peaks, almost the same time. Note these are rescaled, and not accurate scaling in display. The ratio is the area of the two peaks.

a: then load parameter of 2/1 in middle, the intensity. The 44 comes out first, which is why we get this characteristic swoosh.

q: If I want to look at background subtraction, what do I do?
a: set the peak start/end first. Here, peak at 700 and 755, way out.

a: at lndd the CGs were much dirtier. They were adjusting starts and end and background fit. So I'm going to turn BG correction on, with default parameters. Showing drastic movement, changed values 2 per mil.

q: if wanted to save, what would you do?
a: note a bug in the s/w, peaks moved back to auto, and value changed to -19. Could save this way, then load parameters, and get the reprocessed values and get the same number. I'll demonstrate closing the program and opening it again to make sure we are clear.

q: manual processing was observed at lndd?
a: yes, under the supervision of Dr. Botre.

q: what about the popup box to do calculations?
a: the popup shows the detector values as you move the cursor along. Shows you the values of the traces in the graph that is plotted at that X value.

a: not the only thing they did, also manual BG subtraction. Pink line is the automatic BG value; green is points picked by software If there's a contribution from something else, you are trying to remove it.

q: if not happy, what would you do?
a: what was happening at LNDD is they would remove points and add new points where they felt it would best fit. Demonstrate very wrong case, with massive changes to result ratio. Can go the other way as well. Can play all day and give any value you want, from plus or minus 50.

q: when you were at lndd you saw them do this?
a: yes, to the degree not extreme. Let me show minor change Determining how ridiculous the data point is is hard to determine. I don't know how to do it. I don't think the technicians at LNDD know how to do. This is an expensive, rather large random number generator.

q: if I wanted to check, I could save and document whe I'd done.
a: yes, simple save.

q: and if wanted to print, you could.
a: yes, file/print.

q: but after LNDD did this, they just printed.
a: yes, but didn't save. The SOP says you should not save the parameter file after printing results.

q: how hard?
a: file/save/params OK.



You can turn off your computer and go back.

Something marked as an EX.

q: Talk about resume. never got a degree from cambridge?
a: correct. advisors from liverpool and cambridge.

[ he's trying to chew him up on resume fudging ]

q: staff scientist at LBL?
a: yes.

q: that wasn't your title was it?
a: title when I left.

q: when did it become your title?
a: can't say after the top of my head?

q: difference between Staff scientist and post-doc fellow?
a: not sure there is a post-doc fellow at berkeley.

q: let me show you another resume. instead of staff scientist, this resume says post-doc fellow.
a: correct.

q: so there is a post-doc?
a: my description.

q: looked through your pubs and paper list. Is it fair to say you've only had two peer reviewed articles published, one in 2001 on soil gases, and one in 1996 in bumblebees?
a: yes, I'm not an academic, whose job is to publish papers.

q: you resume, under Queens Univ, you said one of your jobs was to publish, but you have none?
a: yes.

[ Dunn looks very grim ]

Being done by Young, this is a delicate slime, not a Barnett.

q: when you talked about this picture about the magnets, you said you put your hand over your heart, and said you couldnt' trust the results
a: I said I didn't know what the results would be. My point is not that it would change the results, but that it shows a complete lack of understanding of the instrument.

q: I want to make it clear this has nothing to do with the isoprime1?
a: it has to do with the understanding of LNDD about the use of an IRMS machine.

q: reprocessing in May, who was there.
a: Me, Botre, Janine, Brenna [ who is Janine? ]

q: botre in charge?
a: yes.

q: you had access to a variety of data?
a: yes.

q: the original data?
a: I never had them, Dr. Botre had them.

q: and the 10 samples in April.
a: yes.

q: Also a log of samples in April.
a: yes.

q: in connection with reprocessing, was there anything you asked botre to do that he was unwilling to do?
a: nope.

q: was there anything asked the lab techs didn't do?
a: no.

q: you talked about the ability to save the parameter files.
a: yes.

q: during reprocessing they did adjust?
a: yes.

q: you never asked them to save?
a: that wasn't my point, it was Botre's procedure. I assumed that they had saved param. I was astounded they were doing it manually without records.

q: but you didn't ask.
a: if they didn't know to do it, it wasn't my job to tell them.

q: for the ones analyzed in april, you had the opportunity to look at the data?
a: yes.

q: on the S17 samples or the April samples, through Botre, you could have asked the data be blown up.
a: yes. had free access, and Dr. Botre. Had the ability, but each file has over 100,000 data files, so it would not have been possible to look at it all.

q: not impossible to blow up m/z on all of them.
a: I have an excel file where I can show you the amount of data. It's not possible to look at everyone. It's burdensome and unreasonable to ask me to have anticipated each point.

q: we've talked about at most 10 chromatograms.
a: yes.

q: you've had them for 1/2 year.
a: I asked for the data files.

q: Dr. Botre let you do anything. Would looking at the EDFs, is that a snapshot before any manipulation.
a: yes.

q: so when you run the EDF's with auto BG, that takes out consideration of manual selection.
a: yes.

q: you asked that be done.
a: correct.

q: and they still came out 5a positive?
a: they aren't even the right peaks, the numbers are meaningless.

q: in your signed statement, you said the reprocessing...
a: let me look.

q: your signature, penalty of perjury.
a: yes.

q: read before you signed, page 6, section e.
a: trying to establish if the original was processed with newer sw., the numbers would be better; I don't think it says anything about reprocessing.

[ Landis looks stressed ]

Young is trying to rush Davis's reading.

q: let me ask the question. You requested the EDFs be reproduced on Masslynx software.
a: that's not what this refers to. I'm saying if the analysis had been done on the new software, the results would be different.

q: Previous page, iii, you say reprocessing on masslynx or ionvantage...
a: reads, "for instance, if..." yes.

q: so you say newer software would remove errors.
a: yes.


[ landis isn't sure what just happened. Young just gave up, because he wasn't getting anywhere ]


q: explain why reprocessing on new software doesn't guaranteed accurate results?
a: yes, may I pull up screenshots from reprocessing?

He wants directory tree shot at the very end of the masslynx data. One at 185 is missing;

GDC 1054 and 1055; missing pages from some copies.

[ davis taps fingers on rail waiting for this to get resolved ]

q: Not present in Jul or Aug 2006 for original processing?
a: correct.

q: Any way of knowing what they did?
a: No only do i now have any idea, they have no idea what they did.

q: when there in april/may, the numbers came up different.
a: correct.

JACOBS: I should have spoken slower. [ he's waiting for something to be found ]

CAMPBELL: I think I read in a declaration, a conversation with Aquilerra, where he said linearity should be run before each sample?

a: no, that was original agreement, but that was retracted. I asked if he thought that was reasonable, he said "no comment"; I have not seen a linearity run at LNDD, despite repeated requests.

[ gets screenshots ]

a: these are to shots from masslynx. "Databridge" software converts the OS2 format to Masslynx software. When we developed BG and peak software for masslynx, this was done from scratch. And we wrote this, but did a rush job, so it is only a partial conversion. So we cheat by copying stuff from other Masslynx software and samples, and we get all this extra stuff added to the OS2 files.

a: while it lets us look at things, the numbers are meaningless; 16/32 bit issues; they aren't compatible. I wanted to view this to show that the auto worked on Masslynx, and not on OS2.

a: why I requested what I requested. First, didn't know what I was going to find there, and asked for things I didn't know if I'd need; It was a shotgun, admitedly. Concluded when got there, didn't need much that was requested. But I did wish to see the raw integration, then the auto BG subtraction to see if there were not being done properely, then the manual correction on the OS2 ; then show on Masslynx to demonstrate that Masslynx could have done it properly, even if the result numbers are meaningless. That is why I was carefully reading before answering Mr young.

q: did reprocessing of S17 tell you anything about background?
a: that it wasn't fit for purpose. We don't know how it works. People have been saying "good enough"? It's not. Every single sample needed to be re-integrated, and every time we've seen significantly different results.


MCLAREN: Do I understand you that Masslynx is state-of-the-art?

a: not quite, but reasonably current. Dr. Brenna has saxicab that is excellent; isodat2; I could push my own but I won't, "maps"; Masslynx is one of about 5.


q: look at original result runs, at original and masslynx values, why are they similar?
a: they are quite different, not exact. I don't know what the difference is, but it's uncertain is the point; the lack of audit trail and know knowledge. There are quite significant changes there.

q: point out?
a: -.6 mil, .4 here, .5 here, .4 mil here; on the blanks, same thing, and there's a difference.

BRUNET: you have your software?

a: yes, it's necessary.

a: do you have commercial interest in Masslynx?

a: no.



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

If you want to post the documents that are on the CVN screen you can save them by right clicking and using "Save picture as" - generally even if you can't get on to the video you get the docs if you keep refreshing.

That would save you having to d/l from the camera.

Keep up the good work.

Katiek said...

Let me add my name to all those showing appreciation for the comprehensive and detailed coverage. I can't access the video stream at work, so your summary is by far the best source of info. Thanks!

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

Dr. Davis is yet another weak paid gun for Landis.

This guy cheats on his resume the way Floyd cheats in a urine cup.

Do Team Landis have an honest, experienced, qualified witness????

Just one? The bluffing is no longer interesting.

Better call the funeral home.

Anonymous said...

and just so i'm clear here, do i have this right: his brilliant testimony yesterday was 10 dubious graphs out of 100,000?!?! or did i miss something there?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Chaz said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

I challenge anybody who has ever applied for more than one job to let me run their resume past all of their previous employers to decide if they accurately portrayed every job activity. Everybody embellishes their resume, everybody knows that everybody does story here. Obviously, they wanted to portray the guy as not being an expert, and that is the best they could do?

As for the rest of the cross, it is about what I expected...minimal questioning about the details, just trying to get him to admit that he didn't object to how the samples were reprocessed at the time it happened. I am hoping Jacobs will ask him what his role as an observer during the testing was. As a third party observer, you are never supposed to in any way direct what is happening or demand that it be done a certain way. You are there to observe and document what the lab does...for better or worse. Even helping them load software and teaching them how to save on it was actually over the line, but I have been in his shoes before. Sometimes, when you see something that is so inept, you step in and help so that you don't spend all day watching the charlie foxtrot. His job is to observe and report back on whether it was done right or wrong...not to make sure that it was done right. It is the supervisor (Botre) who is there to make sure it is done right, and the observer's job to document when it is not...which is what Davis did.

I don't think Young really scored any points with his cross, which leaves lndd looking pretty bad right now. It will be interesting to see if they try to use Brenna to do in rebuttal what they couldn't do in a cross of Davis. And if so, can Landis's attorney's still call Davis as a rebuttal witness to Brenna?

vic32amg said...

Please stop with such silly comments,

i would like to note that this guys testimony has to be very damaging to the USADA. I don't think you can get more credible than the man who designed the machine. also it's one thing to be a bias but another to be a complete fool and post comments like the gentelmen above

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

McLaren's question at the end was interesting. The differences between Masslynx numbers and original numbers is not very great.

Anonymous said...

Since lemond's testimony is in, unless i am mistaken, the arbitrators could just decide to believe Lemond and disbeleive Landis - that Landis admitted to Lemond that he doped - and this case is over. An admission is an admission; no drug tests needed. Typically, the pleadings are conformed to the evidence, so no matter that USADA did not make this allegation originally. Am I right?

Anonymous said...

I would say the masslynx numbers were significantly different. Greater than 10% in most cases.

Depends on your perspective.

Chaz said...

Anon 10:55 II, that can't possibly be the case. If it was every rider that ever came in second would just have to say that the winner admitted to him that he doped.

Anonymous said...

TBV is this a short recess at 11:00 or a longer lunch recess?

Anonymous said...


They would be on extremely shaky ground using Lemond as their only basis for voting guilty, given that the defense was not allowed to cross Lemond. I would think it would almost guarantee an appeal.

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

Recess was stated as a 15 minute one.

Anonymous said...

Lemond vs. Landis on the admission would be a credability issue. Who's more credable at this point? I agree it would be weak, but perhaps not inconcievable that the case could come down to this. If the science was inconclusive, but there was an admission, I think that would still support a finding against Landis.

PatsFan said...

Uh, 11:02 -- WRONG. Sally Jenkins is a Washington Post sports columnist, not a publicist....

Anonymous said...

Interesting questions at the end by Campbell, McLaren, and Brunet. It sounds like they were trying to see if he would give an advertisement for masslynx which could have shown bias on his part or if he would throw aguilerra under the bus. It seems like he resisted both urges...first by allowing that Masslynx is one of 5 and also by denying any commercial stake in masslynx, and second by leaving them with aguillerra's no comment and that he has still never seen a linearity run.

Any thoughts from tbv or those with video on how the questions were posed and any body language from the questioner in response to the answers?

Anonymous said...

The impression I get is that Young is roasting Davis pretty good. What a difference a day makes.

Anonymous said...

I don't have video, so can you elaborate on those impressions? The text summary made it seem pretty innocuous. Was Davis unsure in his answers or was there other body language that changes the otherwise weak points made in the cross?

michael said...

My impression is that it's a tough call, it's all boils down to very technical issues which only experts can really sort out the import of. However it does seem that they punched a few holes in Davis' testimony. I suspect they will put on a rebuttal witness who will offset a few other points and bring the argument back to where they want it. I think there is a very good chance Floyd is going down. And LNDD will be getting a major overhaul and some new computer equipment, software and training.

Anonymous said...

Sally Jenkins is a PAID publist/propaganda queen.

She wrote Lance Pharmstong's bio and marketing books.

Pat Summit too--and much more.

She uses an op-ed column to promte myths.

Still she abandoned landis.

Lance must have called in that move.

Devine intervention cannot change these facts. Only De-nile.

Anonymous said...

Michael, I think you are right on all counts.

Anonymous said...

btw; Dr davis looked like a fool.

nervous, stammering, posturing and fibbing.

Another weak Landis straw man (on retainer).

Anonymous said...

Except on the close call reference.

This is a slam dunk!

Anonymous said...

It seems like the only prominent American cyclist to admit that he took drugs is J. Vaughters ("I was no angel")- and this is only implicit. I find it hard to believe that Floyd was around all these American riders and never saw them (or heard them confess) cheat.

Anonymous said...

Are some of these Anon posts actually Dick Pound? Possibly letting us know that the decision has already been called in!

Anonymous said...

I'm personally enjoying the trolls.
The cynical presentation of opinions as facts is all they have. Bombastic statements are for tabloids, not legit journalistic endeavors and, like tabloids, should be seen as "comedic press".

It only makes the objective members of the community ["I believe..." "It appears to me..."] look that much more rational. By making remarks about the color of a person's tie, they relinquish all credibility.

Sure, they're petty and immature, but their "facts" make the reality of the situation [incompetence at the lab, procedural failures] so much more compelling.

Thanks to all who have remained level-headed in contrast to the captious trolls.

p.s. Sally Jenkins' job is to sell papers and elicit a response. She's entitled to her opinion.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Timm said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Re: Anonymous 10:55
While it may appear that the differences between LNDD's numnbers and Davis' are minor, take a look at Herr Doktor's testimony from the other day. USADA was trying to get him to say the same thing but Herr Doktor pointed out that it was not merely a difference of a few percentage points - it was a factor of 100 -- so instead of a 6% difference, it was really 600%.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
bannaoj said...

q: Not present in Jul or Aug 2006 for original processing?
a: correct.

q: Any way of knowing what they did?
a: No only do i now have any idea, they have no idea what they did.

q: when there in april/may, the numbers came up different.
a: correct.

JACOBS: I should have spoken slower."

Good Stuff

Anonymous said...

George Mitchell is as hnest a steroid auditor as Sally Jenkin's biograhies.

btw: George Mitchell is tehChairman of Disney Holdings (ESPN/ABC). His company pays $2,6 BILLION into ML baseball--and that was why his law firm (DLA Piper) was retained for the steroid audit cover up. See a pattern

Floyd Landis is in deep trouble as a rider. He is still emplyable as a mule or other back room cheat.

The facts are in: they all dope:
Eddie Merkx (3 drug busts)
jacques Anquetil (7 drug busts)
Ivan Basso
Jan Ulrich
Lance Armstrong
Frankie Andreu
Jose Gutierrez
Tyler Hamilton
Roberto Heras
Oscar Camenzind
Oscar Perez
Alex Zulle
Joahn Museeuw
David Millar
Kirk O'bee
Scott Moninger
Tammy Thomas
David Fuentes
Stephen Alfred
Floyd Landis

Grasp it.

Anonymous said...

I think another of Landis' problems will be that if he does go back to racing, he better be a winner, or else it will pretty much show he was doping; assuming he doesn't dope in the future. I doubt he'll go back to racing.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the folks who have put together and maintained this site and exchange.

It is very enlightening to see "Justice" in any matter being delivered...

Keep up the great work and let's all ignore some of the nasty, idiotic posts of some with an axe ( axle?) to grind.

Duckstrap said...

What I thought I heard from McLaren was an intimation that even with the reprocessing and data there wasn't enough to bring a -6 to a -3.8. However, it does appear that the manual reprocessing issues can make a significant difference in the reported CIR. It is unbelievable to me that the techs can remove or add datapoints to the chromatogram in order to make the the background turn out the way the think it should without documenting the reason for the choices. Coming from a drug development background, I can say that among the first things a regulatory reviewer examines is the data that are left out of an analysis. This is followed by very sharp questions as to why this or that data point or individual was left out of an analysis dataset. As to actually adding data points--amazing! Would anyone here actually take a drug for which data points had been added to an observed dataset to adjust it to what the sponsor thought it should be?
The data reprocessing issues are separate from the chromatography issues raised by Dr. Meier-Augenstein, and reaffirmed by Davis. If you can't identify the peaks properly or prove that whatever coelution is occuring is not significant, then you can't say that your measurements are reliable, end of story.

Anonymous said...

I am of the understanding that the Lemond testimony, while sensational, is utterly useless. Can the hearing be decided on a 'he said/she said' basis?

As for the LNDD, something is sketchy there and I feel the USADA rolled in assuming the LNDD work was on par with UCLA. Dangerous assumption.

At this point I find Floyd's guilt or innocence unimportant. A system that is almost as corrupt as the riders it is trying to catch has been exposed.

Anonymous said...

If LF is cleared based on poor evidence, can the WADA have the samples processed again, say at UCLA, and go after him again?

Anonymous said...

there are no more samples.
they used them up with the follow-up B's.

cam said...

<< I think another of Landis' problems will be that if he does go back to racing, he better be a winner, or else it will pretty much show he was doping >>

that is absolutely ridiculous! hello??? he had hip replacement surgery? remember that small little detail?

Floyd will never be the same cyclist he was. hopefully he'll be even better, but there's no guarantee. having an operation like that for a normal person is a big deal. for an athlete that's amplified hugely. like i said, he'll never be the same -- and it has nothing to do with doping.

Anonymous said...

Cam, if I understand you, Landis should be better now than before because of the hip replacement. That makes me wonder how someone with a bad hip could win the tdf, without some help. I know Landis has said repeatedly how great his surgery went. I doubt his surgery would be a convincing excuse for poor times in the future, but maybe.

Anonymous said...

Lemond's testified that Landis confessed his steroid abuse.

Landis confessed to threatening Lemond.

What else do Ted Bundy supporters need?