Hearing - Wed: Rebuttal Brenna
Still milling. Don't know if we're getting rebuttal, or going to arguments.
BRUNET: Welcome..
YOUNG: put Davis' declaration as ex 131.
REBUTTAL
DIRECT by MR YOUNG
q: we heard Dr. Aug say the only way he could identify the internal sample by "divine intervention"
OBJECTION: misstating.
q: did you have any problem identifying the internal standards?
a: no, not at all.
[more]
Brenna Rebuttalq: how did you know where it was.
a: Have to take you through some of the documentation.
Young hands out out documents
q: By the way, the only symbolism in my tie is that my daughter picked it out.
a: USADA 182, first mix cal acetate. Four peaks because we built the standard. We see it as the first. If we flip to USADA 181, and we look at values for time (866 1229 1302 1473). So we know standard is at 866. USADA 18, mix cal acetate done after, with whatever intervening time. Then on USADA 183 (?) retention is 866 1228 1301, 1471) pretty close across the board. This gives us some confidence the peak at 866 is the internal standard in the intervening runs.
He's saying 870 in the GCMS identified the IRMS peak - except he only compares it to other GCMS peaks.a: Look at samples, USADA 158, the CG, and USADA 157 is the sample time (867, 1473, 1763, 1826). From my experience, 876 is the closest peak, and that is within error, so I choose that one as the internal standard.
a: will go through the rest, because there aren't many; USADA 164, USADA 163, (868 1231 1247); so that is it; next is f3 from blank - more complex - USADA 170, USADA 169 (798, 867, 1244, 1306, 1336, 1375, 1651), so pick that one.
BRUNET: by what standard would you say it's off?
a: wait. I'll address that.
a: USADA 168, cg, f1; USADA 160 (778, 867, 881, 1236, 1478, 1764, 1824); the consistency amoung these CG's say that were ok picking 867, will explain more later. USADA 167, USADA 166 (866, 1229, 1254, 1288), and that's the internal standard. USADA 173, USADA 172 f3 sample (795, 827, 867, 1304, 1337, 1652); other peaks are far away.
a: B samples USADA 361, a mix-cal-acetate, USADA 360 (870, 1241, 1316, 1491). That's bigger, but it's a very different set of conditions with the machine.
YOUNG: if time was within a couple of weeks, make a difference?
a: lost.
a: USADA 363, mix cal at end (870, 1241, 1316 1490); now look at samples USADA 333, USADA 335 (869, 1489, 1843); USADA 341 (869, 1241, 1267), USADA 347 (799, 872, 881, 1260, 1323, 1353, 1394, 1672), will explain ambiguity; USADA 338 (777, 870, 1490), USADA 344 (870, 1241, 1266, 1301),
a: USADA 349 shows CG of a congested sample, similar to one used as an example. USADA 350 (797, 839, 871, 880, 909, 1318, 1352, 1671).
[ Landis is drilling holes with a glare ]
Pulling up a slide Brenna made, showing internal standard times.
See -- he shows the GCMS retention times are the same as the GCMS retention times with little deviation. Wow!a: A sample mean 866.6, +/ .07%, B 870.5 +-/.13%; so 880 is not the internal standard.
q: are these within 1%?
a: yes, .07%
q: +/- .2 minute.
a: ok.
q: B?
a: same.
q: do you expect GCMS retention to be the same as the IRMS instrument?
a: no; a diagram would help;
[ uses Davis' block diagram; he's going to draw ]
Davis's block diagram, recycled by Brennaa: the gcms is a faster detector (nearly instant); in the irms the sample gets burned, dried, and sent through plumbing before getting to irms. So there is latency between the GC part and the IRMS part. They might be proportional, but it usually doesn't work that way, because the speed through GC depends on the molecule, but through the IRMS it's all CO2 at the same speed. This has implications for calculating retention and relative retention times.
Young: make exhibit.
q: in your lab, would you expect gc and irms times to correspond?
a: No. we run every day, and match peaks every day.
q: relative retention?
a: no, for reasons outlined.
q: believe any linearity problem during S17 processing?
a: no.
q: why not?
a: we've been provided linearity tests.
q: LNDD0312, despite Dr. Davis saying not saying received:
OBJECTION: Mischaracterize, said he had not seen runs, not data.
q: have you seen results form Jun, Jul, September?
a: yes.
q: start at 314, and explain.
a: I'll repeat that we want to know ratio is accurate at small sizes and large sizes. Here we inject reference gas at different volumes in pulses.
q: is the purpose to show the instrument is giving the same result at these heights?
a: yes; to show yardstick is accurate at 6 inches and 6 feet.
q: so what are we looking for?
a: in the data that follows, we want to see those ratios are nearly the same. This data used in conjunction with samples, you'd want to bracket the data with the sample values.
q: is that true in S17.
a: yes, it was; there's discussion it's not the case. I want to look at signal intensities, which is usual. I can't speak to an error made elsewhere. When I compare the intensity here with those in the samples, they are above these lower levels.
[ that's an interesting hedge there. Crap in shoulders and background that is non-linear of unknown composition can throw things off. ]
q: if there was a linearity problem... do you have any concern there is a linearity problem?
a: no.
q: if there was a linearity problem, would the problem be reflected in peaks that have very different heights?
a: the lowest peak in the lin was down here; all the 5a's are way above that. You'd expect a linearity problem to be reflected when one compares peaks of quite different sizes. While i won't say this size difference is enough to cause that problem, these two are very close in intensity
[ misses the point of background co-elution of differnt substance or values, and integration errors, as demonstarted by the -70 at 5% example ]
q: have you heard any challenge to the mix-cals in 8 days?
OBJECTION: improper direct.
a: I don't recall hearing any. I did hear a number of things that were consistent with my opinions.
q: if they are working, does that mean the instrument is working?
a: yes, it means it is working well for resolved peaks
[ Another dodge -- Herr Doktor's point was whether the instrument worked in complicated matrices with non-well resolved peaks ]
q: if there was a pressure problem, would you have the consistent mix-cal we have here?
a: it would be reflected in a diagnostic. The thinking is a little bit odd to me. I'd look at the mix-cal and mix-cal-acetate, and if the results were not good, then I'd look at pressure or something else.
q: explain the concept of of overlapping peaks, and which contributes to the other. Your paper was quoted, and I want to get it right.
[ draws picture, two -28's, resolved, then overlapped ]
a: our study started with real data, not modelling only. It showed a direction opposite of what was said, we got -29 -27, and that's what I'd expect here, if it were an artifact, which I don't believe it is.
[ landis smiles, then breathes deeply. ]
q: let me take you to just two chromatograms. first is A sample diol, second the B. In reviewing these and the corresponding GC chromatograms, and the ion traces, do you see any problems with interference or other problems that would cause these results to be unreliable.
a: I do not.
q: Dr. Davis showed an example of moving the baseline, and sometimes seeing significantly different results? Is that the way you saw them do it in LNDD?
a: no, it is not.
q: explain the differences in what Davis did and the LNDD techs?
a: first, I say the techs adjust the data, which I call a QC step, and will do here; I observed closely and they first interested in peak start stop, but in verifying the background was properly modelled. The x's you saw deleted and moved, called background points, are better described as anchor points. The s/w uses those to calculate background. Older (and newer) algorithms sometimes choose anchor points that are on peaks. So part of their QC is to be sure the anchors are on background, not peaks. They would quite often move anchor points to ensure to their satistaction that the calculated background corresponded with the trace on the screen. And they took care ensuring that. When I asked them later, that is what they said they were doing.
q: that in the SOP?
a: yes.
q: When he did that this morning, was he setting on peaks?
a: yes, and the results were not in the least surprising; that is what the SOP is intended to avoid, and why it is a QC step.
q: peak start stop. When Dr. Davis was doing this, he appeared to be looking at the peak chromatogram. What did the LNDD techs do?
a: they were looking for something specific, a peak start should have ion/current isotope ratio corresponding to background. Also the swoosh. They'd call up the box, of ion intensity and 2/1. They'd move the cursor to a region that clearly had no peak. If memory serves, at least for the A's the number was 1.174, would advance to see change, back off, and set at a background point, and again on the other side of the peak. I was looking carefully, and they were doing the same thing every time.
[ Duckstrap notes: Brenna appears to be comparing the GCMS chromatograms to alternative GCMS CGs. These are similar, as expected because the chromatography conditions are similar. What is not similar are GCMS CGs that should lead to peak identification, and the IRMS CGs that produce the CIR values. These chromatography conditions are not similar to the GCMS. These are the ones that need to match, and they do not, by a mile. ]
[ Also didn't address magnet, or storage of parameter info ]
NO QUESTIONS
SUH: a few questions for Davis after cross.
Barnett: We'll have no more witnesses; Landis will not ask Botre anything;
We'll get Brenna cross, then a couple for Davis, then arguments this afternoon.
LUNCH
66 comments:
Come on, they would be crazy not to rebut
Young did call Dr. Brenna as rebuttal witness.
Not so crazy. If you're sure that your case is a winner and all the evidence you need is already on the table, then adding more to it is at best redundant.
Not saying they're right about that, just saying that if that's their view it would be understandable to decline rebuttal.
Do you think that the lawyers and panel are in chambers?
Would there even be a possibility of "in chambers"? This was, at FL's request, a public hearing and the arbs are in effect judge and jury. Typical (and Mr. Hue can enlighten further), in chambers sessions are so that the judge and lawyers can examine and argue things out of the jury's presence, so that if evidence or whatever is not allowed, the jury won't be "tainted".
Of course, the arbs could call in all the parties, give them a good idea of which way the wind is blowing and give the losing side a chance to bow out.
Brenna sounds like he knows what he's talking about so far, as far as matching up these internal standards.. Not sure if this is damning evidence or not.
Well, truthfully I have no idea what he's talking about. Whether it is damning or not will depend on whether they still have the expertise present to refute or dissect it on cross.
BetweenRides
Dancing Monkey = Overemphasis on an irrelevant aspect of the case, distracting from the debate at hand.
2 sides to a case. 2 viewpoints on the science. 3 Panel arbitrator Panel to decide. FL's science case = "dancing monkey" according to you. FL then gets no case. You can see the peaks, you know he is a doper so anything else is a distraction? Interesting viewpoint.
Brenna appears to be comparing the GCMS chromatograms to alternative GCMS CGs. These are similar, as expected because the chromatography conditions are similar. What is not similar are GCMS CGs that should lead to peak identification, and the IRMS CGs that produce the CIR values. These chromatography conditions are not similar to the GCMS. These are the ones that need to match, and they do not, by a mile.
so brenna is trying to discredit two other scientists with just as strong a background if not more so, all of a sudden this guy can establish who killed JFK? doesn't make sense - they all had the same data - time, readings etc. I'd have to go with Herr doktor
Brenna and Young seem pretty confident they are blowing Landis's case out of the water right now.. at least they are coming accross that way on the video feed.
I know that this would be never allowed and not proper. But why not have Dr. Davis and Brenna both sworn and then debate? Or better yet, let Davis cross Brenna. I wish Davis could respond to Brenna. Brenna is really just trying to cloud the water with the "it looks good to me" He is completely uncredible. My money is on Landis, but with Davis could have swipe at what Brenna has said.
"Young Ruse" Alert- Any Challenge to mix-cal acetates and if its working, instrument is working-from the lips of Young. He should just testify. But it works ever so much better to use the Ruse.
It Works!!!!
Don't you find Young's prepared exam much superior to his cross?
Does Floyd still have any of his experts there helping the laywers to prepare from the cross examination?
~ Cub
Bill - I find everyone's prepared exams superior to their crosses.
Davis has been around all week so i doubt he'd go home.
TBV is in the room, i'll email him.
Bill
Anon 12:02
Fair enough but the best examinations i have ever seen, say the top 5 or 6 are ALL Cross-examinations.
Does Landis get to call rebuttal witnesses after any of this? Or is he out of time?
These guys are all too good for a Perry Mason moment on cross.
So changing data points is now called 'Quality Control'?
BetweenRides
Floyd: "I couldn't possibly have been going 287mph, officer."
Officer: "But your car is BLACK, and black cars are fast. Didn't you watch Night Rider?"
Floyd: "I didn't really watch much TV in the mid-80's."
Officer: "You also have a history of being fast on a bicycle. Cars have twice the number of wheels as bicycles, so I'm citing you for double-speeding."
Floyd: "Huh?"
Officer: "I bet you also told your daughter that there's an Easter Bunny, making you a liar. You make me sick."
Floyd: "You had that radar gun pointed at the ground. Are you sure you're using it correctly?"
Cop: "I'm using my experience."
It has to end sometime but for all you legal types, there is something called surrebuttal!
Bill
surrebuttal?
I think it's time for you to update the glossary, bill.
BetweenRides
rebuttal to a rebuttal
Yeah,
TBV wants me to do that.
Surrebutal (Dr Davis!!!).
There you go!
Please correct me if i'm wrong here Bill, but unlike a court trial where one is innocent until proven guilty and the burden of proof is on the prosecutor, isn't a proceeding like this closer to a video replay for goals in a hockey game (i'm Canadian. the ref has already made the call and then they review the play. If there is not clear evidence to overturn the ref's call then it stands. if my analogy is valid then a tie between experts or just plain obscure arguments (whether scientifically valid or not) would not be enough to overturn the call that has already been made.
in a nutshell, Floyd needs a slamdunk. confusion favours the USADA.
thanks for all the rational discussion and explanation, this is all very enlightening.
michael.
I don't know why we can't all get along- why don't we have a do-over for the 2006 Tour?
I think Floyd could win- especially with his crack team there in his team car.
Judge Hue,
Are the transcripts to this getting posted somewhere? I presume somebody is paying the reporter for the dailies. Having a transcript (rather than a paraphrase) of closing would be very interesting.
Bill:
Thanks to all for excellent play-by-play and color commentary!!!
Now I'm going on a long overdue ride.
BetweenRides
michael,
I like your analogy and it is accurate. In previous published decisions, these panels have found both experts to have been equally qulified and convincing and the "tie" went to the ADA.
A slam dunk is exactly what the athlete needs. anything else or less has its risks;
bill
Anon 12:16
The transcripts are available to the parties, i think but not to anyone else-media etc. The media wanted them after Lemond but nobody could get them. You would need a pretty big staff to get transcripts edited, certified, printed and distributed.
TBV just verified (beeble?) that davis has been helping Landis' lawyers during Young's direct.
At this point it's more like "surreal-buttal"
I'm creating another Mailbox for further q's.
Any sense as to how well Brenna has rehabilitated the faltering LNDD science?
Maybe the practice out here in California is more tech-oriented, but in my trials (yup, another lawyer pops up) we would get emailed daily "roughs" in ASCII or other formats. My bet is the court reporting service won't want that, as it cuts into their profits. Too bad. I hope that the Landis team ultimately posts them somewhere.
Bill,
Isn't this a little more complicated though? It seems there has been no argument by prosecution so far in rebuttal that would eliminate some of the IS violations (COC problems, confidentiality, not following SOP) alleged by FL's witnesses. So in that event, wouldn't the burden shift to USADA to prove that the lab test problems didn't cause the positive test? If the experts then cancel each other out in a tie, doesn't that mean USADA failed to prove their burden?
Anon @12:06 - Brilliant parody!
So in this case, as it really seems to have gone into technical minutiae I am under the impression they will uphold the findings and Floyd is going to wind up in the history books with a black mark.
On the upswing, by bringing to light lab procedures, out-of-date software, technician training etc. he's probably done more to improve the testing and certainty that future positives will be just that. I would think that making all this public will do a lot to reform WADA's testing protocols. Not the result Floyd would have liked, but a beneficial result for the greater good.
the afternoon session is going to be interesting.
cheers.
I thought it was interesting that all the individual reports that Brenna showed as proof that the retention times matched, didn't have a batch identifying number on them. There is no way to prove that they even match up to the summary sheets they are being compared to. wasn't this a major point of contention in Davis direct testimony?
Excuse me,
Mr Bill H?
Why hasn't anyone thought of lie detector tests? Are they not admissible?
It just scares me to know that someone is innocent and someone is guilty.
It might have been a great time for lunch. Time for Landis's team to talk to their experts so get a few better questions to cross Brenna with?
But I feel like some others here seem to. Even with all the stuff Landis's experts said/produced, the tide is still in WADA's court. I would love for Floyd to be found innocent, but don't think it's going to happen.
Lie detectors are about as reliable as LNDD.
Only 5 seconds remianing in the game...Ugustine (guarded by Brenna, with 2 refs also standing between him and the basket) dribbles between his legs..then dribbles between Brenna's legs... past the refs...then passes to Davis who is slashing toward the basket..Brenna's coach attempts to spot Davis by throwing chair... Davis scores with a flying-tomahawk-in-your-face-jam. Game over.
You can't fight city hall.
Anyway, it's pretty likely that Landis's team caught the same things duckstrap did, they're pretty good at this game, too. USADA did a good job of obfuscation, but not that good.
Hi,
Where do we go from here? If there is a "code of silence," how do we get the riders to stop doping? And isn't doping bad for you?
jim 12:28,
Good catch...hopefully that is the first thing Suh hands Davis in surrebuttal.
Suh: Mr. Davis, are these the sheets Mr. Brenna used to verify the LNDD tests?
Davis: Yes?
Suh: Anything unusual about them?
Davis: They don't have any batch numbers on them.
Suh: How is that important?
Davis: Those results could be from any batch...there is no evidence that they are related to the analysis of FL's samples.
...or something like that.
Hi,
Mr. Bill, H?
I think this trial is a perfect example of how biased America is against Mennonites- maybe they have unnaturally high hormones. Look at the medical cases that exist regarding Mennonites:
http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/blue-lights-save-lives-in-stricken/20070520135709990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001
Here is an example of how cultures can maintain a genetic identity that can trip up a test.
Why hasn't anyone brought this up?
12:41 tough question,
You either have to get draconian about how and when you test athletes. Or you stop trying to prohibit the substances that you can't adequately test for to level the playing field and focus on looking for the ones you can find. They could also do things like are done with team level hemacrit testing. Instead of trying to stop the doping, stop the doping at the point that it puts cyclists at risk. Right now, it is clear that for every move the authorities make, there are plenty of new substances and new methods developed by the riders. So at what point do you change how you try to regulate the at least level the playing field if you accept that it is impossible to catch them all? Do you just set max hemacrit levels and max testosterone levels etc. and test for those? At least then, the burden would be on the rider to stay under a given level...anybody could use anything they wanted as long as their levels stayed below a danger threshold? I don't like that idea, but at least it would hopefully establish a level playing field for the racers...even if the field as 100% dirty.
But drugs are bad- that is why we have a "War On Drugs." I think it wouldn't be good to allow athletes to dope- they are the role models for our children.
I am an attorney as well. I have listened and watched most of the testimony for the whole proceeding and read the respective briefs.
Given the mountian of scientific evidence in support of Floyd and the awful procedures and lack of dcoumentation of the lab and the clearly biased USADA witness (They don't even have a correct manual for the machine for crying out load.) I thinks it's amazing that some here are saying that Floyd could lose(because of the overtly anti-athlete bias of the proceeding).
In other words, if an athlete can't win with this evidence, then I don't think any evidence could ever be enough(except perhaps an outright admission by the lab techs to some malfeasance) That it's even considered a close call is pretty damning to WADA and USADA.
This is not some mere technicality. It's incompetance, deception, bad science and overwhelming bias all rolled into one.
Sorry,
I misspoke (mis-typed?). That's what happens when you start talking without seeing the slides. What Brenna was referring to was the retention times of the internal standards for the IRMS results, which, again should be internally consistent. What is not consistent is still the comparison between the IRMS and the GCMS, which is on, e.g. USADA 168 corresponding to the IRMS report on USADA 169.
it wouldn't be good to allow athletes to dope- they are the role models for our children.....
And what role models they are almost across the board. Pick your professional sport and then pick your drug...
When you mix money and fame into the equation....
I think there is more evidence here to be convince that Floyd doped than to find WMD !
I think we should have cycling become amateur again- then it would just be fun- sprinting for city line signs. I would turn out to watch Floyd Landis sprint against Marty Nothstein.
I guess Floyd did not call Eddie Merkx BECAUSE he learned that he too was drug busted & DQed three times. Merkx was even tossed out of the Giro whislt leading in 1969 as a defending champion.
No wonder why neither Lance of Floyd raced the Giro.
Axel Merxk was a Landis/Phonak teammate last year.
They all dope. Few get caught.
Maybe they should just let these guys all dope. USADA / WADA tries to catch them, but they just get hammered for doing so. Why bother. Let them all end up like Lyle Alzado or something.
Post a Comment