Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Hearing - Weds: Brenna cross, Davis surrebuttal.

Starting to gather.

BRUNET: Welcome back. Mr. Suh?


q: relative retention time calculable off the mix-cal acetate?
a: I don't think I said that.


q: disagree?
a: in principle, i would not disagree.

q: are you saying you can calculate the relative rention time off the mix-cal acetate in this case?


a: you can calculate relative retention time, yes.

q: in this case.
a: yes.

BARNETT: asked and answered. yes or no. Mr. Suh has learned better.

q: can calculate the 5a and Andro in this case?
a: no, they are not in the mix-cal acetate.

q: USADA 175, recognize?
a: I'm sure I've looked at it.

BARNETT: get the witness hard copy.

q: you recognize this identifies compound in mix-cal acetate.
a: yes.

q: where is the 5a-diol used in this case?
a: not there.

q: where is the andro?
a: not there.

q: which is why you can't calculate retention in this case?
a: can't from analysis in this mixture.

q: you had certainty of relative retention time, but you didn't mention this.
a: it is accurate that all four analytes are not in this mixture?

q: GDC 1374, is a copy of the rough transcript of your testimony from May 14th.

BARNETT: complete pages?

SUH: if you want to give him pages on redirect, be my guest.

q: P142, 143 about USADA 172 and 173. you recognize these?
a: yes.

q: what do you recognize them to be?
a: f3 fraction of athletes samples, i believe.

BARNETT: give him hard copy

[ playing for time; Suh is short; this is sharp and Barnett is trying to slow him down ]

q: I'll read from transcript.

BARNETT: who's asking the questions?

SUH: I'm asking the questions.

q: (reads) do you recall testifying to that?
a: yes.

q: at the time you were answering...
a: yes.

q: you didn't talk about that today, did you?
a: I talked about whether they should coincide. I talked about whether they should correspond?

q: when you were being asked questions, you were misleading the panel?
a: I don't believe i intended to?

lost an exchange.

q: you testified the retention time drift of about 3s didn't concern you because it took place over about four weeks.
a: yes.

q: how much time separated the A and B sample test?
a: couple of weeks.

q: days?
a: 11 days.

q: do you believe a 3s drift is cause for concern?
a: not in the least.

q: you said in your lab you saw different times, and you see molecules come out at different times depending on the instruments.
a: yes.

q: do you see differences of as much as 4 or 5 minutes?
a: if were trying to match them closely, no; if we were setting them up in other ways, we might.

q: do you recognize this?
a: it looks like a capillary. A fused silica capillary.

q: what is it in relation to this?
a: one of these, 10s of meters long 20-30 meters. It will be the GC column. It will also be usedby the compbustion system to move gases through the interface blah, blah.

q: it's not your contention you would see substances through this minutes apart from each other?
a: if separate injections.

q: if injected at the same time.


q: you said it didn't concern you at all they didn't come out at the same time.
a: yes.

q: how much time would or woulud not concern you? substances through this tube would come out minutes apart if injected at the same time?
a: if not responsive, ask again. If you are referring to the distance from the GC to the IRMS, and two compounds entering at the same time no, it shouldn't take 4 minutes.

q: so when you said it didn't concern you, you weren't talking about this case, hypothetical about some other case?
a: clarify my comments. It is not the case you'd see the identical retention times. I think you're asking if the interface should cause a 4 minute delay. It shouldn't. It would not be expected they match within some pre-determined specification.

q: that's why you use relative?
a: no, I explained that this morning. you want me to explain?

q: no that's all right. no, go ahead.
a: on the gcms side we see a pattern, and then [stuff] and you see the same pattern here, and they have approximately the same look from this distance. So, I'd start with that peak, anchored on the internal standard, and can identify the last peak based on pattern, which is one of the ways that I'd identify peaks comparing these.

q: how familiar are you with the os/2 software?
a: couldnt' run it now; could have if had it a week ago.

q: USADA 349, 800-900-second zoom in, USADA 344, highlight left colmun.

q: explain how os2 determined the peak at 870 is the peak you are anchoring yoursellf on.
a: ummm.

q: why couldn't it be any of these here? when you look at the data processing results, there's only one, and it's the closest in time. When you look at the chromatogram, there's lots of peaks, and os2 picked one. How can you sit there and and say with complete certainty that is the right peak?

YOUNG: do these match?

oops, not 349, it's 350.

q: how do you know?
a: the way software works, one sets parameters for detecting peaks, and one is peak threshold based on intensity. what it seems to have done here is pick 8 peaks and reporting their retention times. This morning we went through the process several time, this is how I identified the peak. Showed very small variation in retention times, so the peak at 880 is several std-dev's away. [goes to his morning graph] So a peak that's 8 seconds away is 50 std-devs away.

BARNETT identifies the morning graphs as EX 134.

[ Brenna sighs deeply, he is not enjoying this ]

q: On May 14th, you said with respect to reprocessing, you didn't see any reprocessing.

BARNETT: objection, show the transcript?

SUH: I'm asking the questions.

BARNETT: is this a memory test?

Q: do you recall that you observed no reprocessing multiple times?

BARNETT: objects.

BRUNET: allowed.


A: I don't remember those words, I'll clarify.

q: that's enough. did you take any contemporaneous notes of the reprocessing?
a: I'm sure I took some.

q: do you have them here?
a: no.

q: did you refer to them before testifying here?
a: i reviewed them at some point. they're in new york. I cannot produce notes.

NO QUESTIONS; Call Dr. Davis on Linearity;



q: did you hear Brenna's testimony on linearity?
a: yes.

q: do you agree with him?
a: I think he missed my point.

q: was his description was correct?
a: i think he's confused it with another instrument.

q: how?
a: the bellows is only used in a dual injection system; this continuous flow system uses a valve.

[ landis, head in hand ]

[ landis is starting to jiggle, first I've seen that all hearing ]

[ jacobs give evil grin to suh ]

LNDD 341 Linearity Results

q: explain.
a: as I mentioned that linearity is important, that there's no difference for low or high concentrations. An example LNDD 341. here, gas pulses are injected. The results here; the number at the end shows the difference. Difference here is 0.4/mil. here in LNDD314.

[ branna shakes head. ]

Linearity specs from MS manufacturers; says isoprime should be 0.3.

a: GV says you have a full range from 0.3/mil A number of the LNDD runs are out of spec; here is a chart I've made of the linearity runs we've been give. The first two are out of spec for the GVI instrument; using a slightly different measure. This is the basis of my argument the machine is out of spec. This is using the sample range, and failed the test. Using Ayotte's word, "not fit for purpose"



BRUNET: Furthere witnesses or proof?

SUH: rest.

BARNETT: collection affadavits, we'll submit.

SUH: no objections.

BRUNET: time for closing arguments?

SUH: Will try to be shorter but have 90 minutes.

YOUNG: Same. Under UCI rules, athlete may go last, so I'll save time to respond;

SUH: We understood we'd go last, and under UCI rules we'd get to speak last.

YOUNG: we're fine with that, but want to make a shorter presentation, then we can respond, and they can have the last word.

SUH: Our argument was 90 minutes a side, no breaking up our argument; not acceptable.

YOUNG: UCI only says they go last.

BRUNET: Copy of our order?

BARNETT: which order is that?

BRUNET: Procedural order 5; it doesn't seem clear. "each side will have opportunity to make a closing argument, not longer than 90 minutes in length"

YOUNG: [but we did it that way in Hamilton...]

BRUNET: Useful to file post-hearing briefs?

BARNETT: we do not believe there is reason.

SUH: We'd leave it to the judgement of the panel. If you'd give me a moment to confer with my client.

[ huddle ]

SUH: We leave the issue of briefs to the panel.

MCLAREN: Mr. Young, give your full presentation, reserve some time for rebuttal; Mr Suh, same; you'll have the last word.

SUH: Not precisely clear, I thought there was some extra arguments there.

handwaving; Suh gets the hint.




Anonymous said...

Brenna is getting shredded on cross. He does not look happy and even his lawyers can't interrupt enough to keep his reputation from going down the drain.

very interesting

Anonymous said...

Let me preach: It's important not to get to sucked in by the parties' respective strategies. The defense is going to focus on the minutia - that's the way you always do it (that's what you are taught to do), and the plaintiff is going to focus on the big picture. Landis cannot succeed by challenging the test itself if the tests were done within protocol; he needs to be able to show that the test was done outside of protocol. So if Davis testifies that he would have done it differently but differently is different than protocol, he scores no points (it's kind of like arguing that the law should be different than it is - that's great but bring it up with the legislature.) So Brennan's rebuttal was that everything was done within protocol; the surrebuttal will need to necessarily highlight that it was not. My point is keep your eye on the ball, not all discrepancies score points.

Anonymous said...

Brenna looks like he is in trouble.

Anonymous said...

Brenna doesn't know the OS/2 software? wow.

Anonymous said...

Let Brenna talk all day long, he can leave a final bumbling presentation of USADA's case for everyone to remember.

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

let's review:

This week the entire T-Mobile team roster from the 1990s is confessing to massive doping.

From Udo Bolts, Eric Zabel, Rolf Aldag to the 2007 doctors. Jan Ulrich and Bjarne Riis to come/

Ivan Basso was sacked by Lance Armstrong. btw: Where is Cowboy?

Landis Team Phonak was a dopers paradise before he blew it up last July.

Soon Landis will be banned for life.

FFF needs a new fund raising stooge. Perhaps Charles Manson needs help.

Anonymous said...

anon 2:03, you just took the words right out of my mouth. I wonder what the numbers would look like if you could track the number of people clicking refresh and hoping the running commentary has been updated?

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

I've got video now but I missed Brenna...

Anonymous said...

If you want to see what a drug cheat and witness tamperer looks like---focus in on the face of Floyd Landis.

Yellow or balck tie, it hardly matters.

Anonymous said...

q: when you were being asked questions, you were misleading the panel?
a: I don't believe i intended to?


I don't believe I intended to? That's not a denial. That's like someone putting a pickaxe through someone's foot and saying "I'm sorry you're hurt."

Anonymous said...

This feels like the sprint!

Anonymous said...

Did Brenna actually lie under oath? Said in prior testimony there was no reprocessing but now there was reprocessing but has no notes of it (compared to Dr. Davis's grid of lab tech activity)
Get outta here!

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

I watch proceedings at night, while reading the transcripts... glad that I took so many semesters of Chem in college. I will admit that I have been following this case and doing more background research than when watching the TdF.

BTW the LNDD = Muppet Labs comment still reigns supreme. FFF needs to sell those as T-Shirts.

Anonymous said...

I bought my own connection. So make sure that TBV relates how Brenna was vehemently shaking his head when Davis did a mini-rebuttal.

Then Davis blew Brenna out with two points

1) Brenna doesn't know the equipment since he said bellows -- not used on the Isoprime -- its a valve.

2) The difference in the IS runs is .04 mil. This indicates the machine is non-linear. Why? The User manual states for IS controls it must be < .03 mil to be linear.

Awesome Dr. Simon Davis!

Anonymous said...

I think Mickey Mouse labs is probably more appropriate. I think they ought to sell tshirts with a picture of the "mickey mouse ears" magnets next to the machine.

Anonymous said...

They could even put the "we are using our experience" quote from the french lab techs under the picture...

Anonymous said...

Please illuminate for someone who doesn't have a video connection: was the shaking of the head in the nature of "no, that's wrong" or in the nature of "oh #&!"?

randy said...

This is the t-shirt. Get photos of faces of Mongu and Frelat and superimpose them on the podium girls who are kissing Floyd after the S17 win. the lab techs love him! Now they are famous too!

Anonymous said...

Honestly, I wasn't sure what to think going into this trial, but after I have read every last flippin word of the prosecution and defense: My God, what a disaster is the LNDD lab? Small errors can lead to huge problems for an athlete, and it appears that the technicians relied not on science but their "experience"....folks, experience is NOT science. So many errors.....

IMHO, Landis is innocent because LNDD committed so many errors. By moving data points in the software and by chosing one data point over others (regardless of the evidence), the lab tried to get the answer they wanted.

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