Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Hearing - Weds Finger Stretch

The last day.

It's clear and the sun is shining, and the press room is empty. The TV folks who were here on a Floyd-watch are nowhere to be found. We're away from dancing monkeys, and back to scientists and lawyers.

(Not entirely true -- channel 11's camera guy walked in after I started writing)

None of the interesting documents are on the USOC pressbox site yet. We are particularly waiting for Herr Doktor Professor Wolfram Meier-Augenstein's powerpoint.

I got hit with a cluestick, and realized this morning I can take pictures of exhibits from the screen in the press-room, so if I remember, I'll do that and get around to inserting them when convenient.

USADA has lots of time -- so much they volunteered some to Landis if needed. So I expect to see them try to do damage to Davis in cross. If they don't get anywhere, they may try to put up Brenna, but cross on him might be ugly for him now that facts have been presented that show his initial analysis and observation of the reprocessing to have been perhaps not as thorough as they might have been.

I think the press will all entertain the fantasy that when Davis is done, USADA does little cross, and offers no rebuttal, only so we can get closing arguments and be wrapped up today.

Using the "law of most inconvenience", the press is also completely convinced closings will be deferred to some other time and location.

It's been curious to observe how the focus of the trial for USADA and most of the press has changed from science to "character" issues. Certainly the call was a large distraction, but it really doesn't have anything to do with whether these tests of these samples show what they are claimed to show. This isn't a trial about whether Landis is a nice guy, or about how much doping there is in cycling generally. It is about specific tests done by a specific lab, and the rest is insinuation and innuendo, of no probative value.

One of the things Bill Hue noted in Malibu Views bears repeating. Once USADA turned the case over to outside counsel, the search for truth on their side was lost, in favor of winning!

USADA seems to rarely have been in a position of having a bad case, and doesn't know how to handle them. Dr. Catlin is probably right -- the cases that come out of UCLA are very good, and those athletes are cheaters. He's said UCLA runs a tight ship because a false-positive would be disastrous.

LNDD, on the other hand, has demonstrated a certain relaxed attitude towards things. They are in the "good enough" frame of mind, and don't particularly express concerns about errors.

Then USADA gets a politically charged case built on LNDD evidence, and all they know how to do is proceed full speed ahead, like it was a UCLA case. Well, not entirely true -- they learned how to scorch the earth on a non-UCLA case with Hamilton.

It's pretty clear that Landis knew most of the basic problems in the LNDD provided evidence before the ADRB met. Between the unanswered questions of Dr. de Boer at the B sample test (last three pages of the LDP, here, here and here), and the filing way back then, in October, the major issues discussed by Goldberger, Amory and Herr Doktor were already identified. The observation of the new B sample testing and reprocessing of the S17 data have only revealed more problems, not generated more evidence in USADA's favor.

In the meantime, Landis has been under tremendous pressure, and has lashed out at times. His manager, who used the "war" analogy openly, himself became a casualty, and seriously hurt others while cracking.

It's ugly all around.

How did it come to this?


Anonymous said...

Do you really think they go hard after Davis on cross? I think they try to get him off the stand as quickly as possible because i don't think they have anybody on their team who is capable of matching wits with him on the subject at hand. The very best they can hope for would seem to be to get him to repeat that he didn't think the analysts were intentionally trying to change the result with their manual corrections.

As for Brenna, what are the odds that he spent the entire evening trying to talk USADA out of calling him as a rebuttal witness because he can see the freight train of the cross heading at him? At this point, I don't see how anything he could say in rebuttal would be more powerful than the damage that is likely to occur in a bloodbath that would be the cross. So if his rebuttal won't help more than the cross will hurt, why call him at all? I know if I were him, I would have hopped on the first plane out of town last night to avoid having to choose between sacrificing my scientific reputation or throwing away $1.3 million dollars of funding.

strbuk said...

>.How did it come to this?<<

It cam to this my friend because as Floyd said last fall, "this is war" and there are always unfortunate casualties of war. I almost would laugh about it at this point if I could, but USDA claims that Floyd Landis would try to win at any cost? Seems to me all sorts of fine , and maybe some not so fine, people have been thrown under the bus by USADA in its "win at all costs" mentality. Good luck today, you have been doing a great job under unexpected circumstances for which many folks are grateful.


Bolivar said...

this definitely has turned into the soap opera the press was hoping for, hence why they continue to disregard the science. Brenna is damned either way. Meanwhile over in Spain Oscar (whose name has been linked to Peurto)just doesn't know how to keep his mouth shut:
Is Dick Pound going to get the boot?
Will the UCI stand for this?
How much involvement does ASO have?
Don't you think the USADA hired outside attorneys because they knew they were screwed on this one? somone else to take the blame like Brenna will have to one way or the other.

Anonymous said...

LNDD. They are the root cause of this situation.

Assuming that the evidence is correct and they are just not competent to fulfil their obligations to the anti-doping authorities, you have to wonder how many other sporting careers and personal reputations have been ruined by their (criminal ?) negligence. If their AAF rate is 300% of the average, can we assume that approximately two thirds of those individuals are potentially innocent ?

zbicyclist said...

That's a good point about the USADA being used to cases based on the UCLA lab (or possibly another lab with a clue).

Frankly, I've never understood why the practice is to have both A and B samples tested at the same lab. Wouldn't it make logical sense to have all B samples tested in a different lab, as a matter of policy? Plus, requiring some tests of "placebos" so the lab wouldn't automatically know this was a "B" from a suspect "A"?

All in all, though, this is a race to the bottom. The whole business from both sides is profoundly depressing.

Anonymous said...

Can someone let us know how the lab problems in this case compare to the alleged lab problems in the Hamilton case?

Anonymous said...

It is amusing that Catlin's word is believe when it looks good for Floyd's case, but when he says things like: "Asked his opinion on whether Landis doped at last year's Tour, Catlin said, simply: "There's no question about it. My opinion is doping is going on."

His comments are conveniently overlooked. TBV accusing the USADA of throwing the search for truth overboard and just trying to win is one of those "speck in someone else's eye, log in your own" kind of dichotomies.

Anonymous said...

Davis must explain how LNDD correctly analyzed the 'clean-control urine sample'.

Only Landis urine had steroids in it. The science convicts Landis.

Meanwhile, character does count.

Lancis is a low life scrum puddle of a man. A soory excuse for a cheat and liar.

Landis has already confessed to witness tampering and public threats. His father-in-laws suicide is not such a surprise now that we can all see the true Floyd.

The mainstream media has truned on him now. He has been labled a coward and a liar.

The general public loves most steroid addicts, but despises a coward.

Anonymous said...

Anyone know what the percentage of cases appealed to CAS are reversed? If Landis looses, how good are his chances on appeal?

Anonymous said...

The whole anti-dopiing system smacks of what I call "True Believers". They at least seem to strongly believe that sports in general and cycling in particular are ridden with dopers (maybe true) and the way to rid them is with draconian punishments given to anyone caught up in the dragnet, whether or not they are guilty, or only guilty of minor, inadvertant violations, or truly innocent. On top of this you have at least the incentive for nationalism to raise it's ugly head, either in the form of a National ADA letting off its athletes and/or trying to manipulate results to nail foreign athletes.

WADA is abdacating its resposibilties as an overseer of the process. They should be holding labs to the highest standards, instead of attempting to sweep dirt under the rug. If labs have problems, they should be forced to clean up their act or be de-certified. If event organizers and or national sports bodies are manipulating the ADA process in any way to get the results they want, they should be sanctioned.

DBrower said...

I believe Dr. Catlin also did not dispute Suh's "if the data is correct" when justifying his conclusions.

Since he has not been present for the defense case, or probably heard the arguments about the data integrity, the conclusions he draws from the data may be incorrect.


Anonymous said...

anon 8:56,

The dichotomy involved is between fact and opinion. Catlin reported the "fact" that WADA requires that people receiving money refrain from testifying or assisting athletes in any way, and he testified about the "fact" that he was confronted about the "facts" he disclosed in another case that were marginally damaging to WADA's case. On the other hand, his "opinion" is that Landis and lots of other cyclists at the TDF doped.

I believe the "facts" he testified about. I will use my own judgement and review of the "facts" in this case to form my own "opinion" about FL. I can only hope that the panel has the same open mind.

Bolivar said...

remember that there were 12 other riders with positives - only they had "exemptions" to use

Unknown said...


Speaking at a visit to the Volta a Catalunya, Prudhomme commented, "The doping case of Floyd Landis is in the hands of the court. We must let the system do its work. Really, there is no doubt. According to the positive results, Landis can't be the Tour winner." He added, "In 2007 I want a credible final winner, with no doubts about his honesty."

Talk about having your cake and eating it too..."Let the system do it's work....but it doesn't really matter." BS...

Anonymous said...

anon 9:00,

At least get your facts straight before you launch into your juvenile rants. Landis' urine didn't have steroids in it. It had testosterone. All urine has testosterone, and there was no "clean" urine sample there. What the defense has proven is that the methods used by the lab are not capable of properly quantifying the results of the samples they run manually. Certain samples with overlapping peaks and other matrix interferences will automatically cause higher results using their methodology, because they are not doing the manual processing properly. Other samples that do not have those same issues will come up normal. The fact that all of Landis' results jumped around in the LNDD samples and did not do the same thing in samples from other races run by other labs is evidence that LNDD has a quantitation problem in their analysis.

Their 300% higher rate of positives is further evidence of this problem...

Anonymous said...

anon 9:00,
The science can only convict Landis if it is done without ISL violations. Since it appears that several ISL violations occurred during the scientific gathering of the data used to implicate Landis, the USADA must prove that those ISL violations did not cause a false AAF.

I don't know how they can objectively prove that when the science used did not follow a standard, repeatable, well-document process.

Anonymous said...

Pro-ycling is a joke since EPO era (1990). It's like NFL, baseball.
Sure last year the 20th first were not clean, how could we believe the first was cleaner?

Jeff said...

As I understand it, Hamilton tried to argue that the tests weren't valid because of their methodology. The tests themselves weren't right. Floyd is saying the tests themselves are correct, when done properly, they just weren't done properly in this case.

Anonymous said...

You ask why this trial has become about Floyd's Character? Isn't Floyd's testimony when questioned by his own counsel almost entirely about his own character? "I just wouldn't want to win a tour that way."
The idea that a local Pennsylvania doctor has "never seen a Mennonite lie?"
Out both sides of your mouth, gentlemen.

DBrower said...

I'd have preferred he didn't testify at all, but appearances required it, for both sides. It is required shadow-play.

There was nothing of value related to the tests in the case, and it consumed a day that could have better spent with science witnesses.


Anonymous said...

Bolivar said...
remember that there were 12 other riders with positives - only they had "exemptions" to use

This needs to be used as a new study that testosterone does not improve performance for endurance sports, since they didn't win.

Anonymous said...

I just read the Hamilton decision. Campbell bought all of Hamilton's arguments about the testing methodology being unproven. That may be fine, but I think Hamilton is generally now recognized to have been be a doper, with all the Operation Puerto stuff. So Campbell may have been "right" about the testing, but ultimately wrong about whether Hamilton transfused. If the purpose of the hearings is to determine the "truth", who was right, Campbell or the others. At any rate, looking at the Hamilton case, I'd think Campbell will side with Landis on this one. Brunet wasn't in the Hamilton case, so I have no idea where he's at in this case. McLaren seems, based on past history, to probably be one to vote for USADA here. Anyone know anything about Brunet that might give an indication of how he feels about testing issues? I know time will tell, but it's fun to try to guess.

cp said...

I'm left to wonder - if Floyd is vindicated here, what are the implications for this year's tour? Any? In the wake of a "not guilty" certainly some kind of "replacement" testing protocol is in order, and could that be stood up in time for the event? What team/rider/sponsor in their right mind would risk reputation if the existing system was left intact and Floyd proven innocent?

Anonymous said...

anon 9:33

I have reviewed the data that bolivar posted above and that you summarized in your review above. Does this mean that Bolivar's data has now been through the equivalent of two reviews ala the Copenhagen conference presentation and is now accepted as "peer reviewed" given our "generally favorable" acceptance of bolivar's data? If so, somebody should get this to Suh right away so he can get it admitted as rebuttal evidence.

Anonymous said...

Landis is one drug cheat of millions. But he is high visability and in a sport that is wholly irrelevant to USA media revenues. Armstrong retired and with Armstrong went the media protection for cycling doping.

600,000 to 1,000,000 American teenagers are already abusing steroids and amphetamines.

NFL, MLB, NBA scouts demand it.

The science proves Landis doped througout the 21 day race.

Worst of all, for the media advertisers, is that Landis is a black tie wearing coward and low life puddel of a human being.

And that's why Landis is doomed.

Anonymous said...

My read on Brunet is that he was very interested in what Davis was saying about the machine's operation and the improper pressures during the analysis. he had enough interest in that point of testimony to ask questions to make sure he understood it properly. If he didn't consider the evidence important or thought it was irrelevant, he would not have asked the question. Its pretty thin, but that is the best read I have gotten so far on where Brunet's mind may be at.

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 8:56: Catlin's testimony is intriguing to me too. He's the only one on the USADA side that I felt had any honor. But here's what I am thinking -- let me know what you think after reading this.

Catlin was reviewing the LNDD data, and gave his opinions based on the data he saw. He was *assuming* that the data sheets were accurate. In fact, he strongly hinted (if not outright said during cross) that all WADA witnesses had to make such assumptions and to testify in favor of other WADA labs.

However, what Landis's scientific witnesses have shown is that the LNDD data is not accurate. The data collection process was riddled with errors; the chromatographs were not of good quality; they do not show what the WADA witnesses claim they show; the LNDD techs changed the graphs to make them match what they thought they should be showing, and so on. Catlin's testimony came before all of these disclosures and thus does not reflect whether he would say the same thing given those serious deficiencies.

Now, would you still give Catlin's testimony as much weight? I do not, particularly given his statement that WADA witnesses are not allowed to criticise a WADA lab.

Anonymous said...


All the "science has proven" in this case is that they couldn't find their own backside even with two hands, a map, and a gps.

Anonymous said...

Regarding the Hamilton Case, and so-called general consensus that he doped: It may be true that general consensus is that he doped. However, this conclusion is most certainly NOT premised on the science. The data in his case are not definititive one way or another. The fact of his name coming up in the context of Puerto is convincing to most people. The anecdotal evidence seems to be building up. Hamilton is believed to be a doper, but still hasn't been proven to be so, despite our vehemently stated conclusions to the contrary. It is possible for the system t be unfair, AND any single rider claiming so to be innocent ot guilty. They are really distinct issues, and should be treated as such . . . except in the context of any single rider's case. Due process is necessary. Without it, guilt and innocence simply can't be determined. Hamilton may simulatneously be guilty, and a victim of poor due process and rigged science. Most likely, we'll never know. But, it makes us more comfortable to paint the picture in balck and white, in retrospect. SO, we do. Reality is more comlicated.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 9:13


Testosterone IS a Steroid.
For the definition of a steroid check here

All steroids, whether synthetic or naturally occuring have a common 17 carbon 4 ring system.

Second clarification:

The 12 other riders tested positive for banned substances and had exemptions were not necessarily all testing positive for the SAME substance, depending on what drugs they were taking. (allergy meds for example) Their tests may or may not have had anything to do with testosterone.

Third clarification:

Floyd HAD an exemption for using cortisone (a different steroid from testosterone).

The lab should have found the cortisone somewhere because it *is* a banned substance, reported it, and then cleared it as being exempt by doctor's orders.

I still haven't seen *anywhere* where this happened.


Anonymous said...


Fine, testosterone IS a is also a naturally occurring steroid. So detecting that particular steroid in somebody's urine in in no way evidence of "taking that steroid". The supposed detection of exo-T and the supposed finding that his ratio was out of whack and indicated use of synthetic T is ultimately inconclusive at this point, because the lab work is so sloppy that they can't even prove that they were looking at the right peaks, and even if they were, their quantification of those peaks is blown away by all of the errors and improper manual manipulations they did. So saying they detected steroids in his urine and not in others is totally incorrect. They detected testosterone in every urine sample they tested, because it is a natural steroid that occurs in every person's body. What is ultimately in question here is whether the lab followed international standards, and if not, could their deviations have resulted in the positive test. All of the testimony in the last two days makes it abundantly clear that the lab did not follow the standards, and that any of several of the deviations had the potential to skew the sample result by enough to have caused the positive tests. I don't know if Floyd is guilty of doping or not...but I do know that the evidence presented so far is sufficient to prove that the USADA can't know if he is guilty either.

Anonymous said...


There are actually three parties (which is as it should be) judging the case. The closed UCI/WADA/USADA system. The closed system in which an athelete is subjected to an internal contractual issue with his righted association to participate with said sport and it's governing groups. As far as I can tell at least. Then there is the outside system of public law. Honorable men and women that advocate against the inujustice of a closed system with out any checks or balances. Those folks are heros. Now thankfully, the press led by TBV is bringing the full weight of publicized information to bear on both parties. Which is as it should be. Bias or not The coverage is glorious. Active citizens bent on good.

Question: I'm wondering if Bill Hue could comment on any reforms that may begin to come from cases like these. Will new law need to be legislated? If so at a national or International level? or specifically through which organizations. Obviously sporting bodies are allowed to arbitrarily define what merits what they describe as fair play. Where is the line drawn? Is it time for outside public intervention into these closed systems. So both the extremes of Barry Bonds (if he's guilty) and Floyd Landis (if he's not guilty) do not happen? How would this intervention be done?

Anonymous said...

I agree with 9:38. I think this whole thing for Landis was about money, and whether he wins this thing or not, I think his demand for a public hearing has probably backfired on him, as whether he wins or not, the public will believe he doped anyway and /or is otherwise not a reputable person, based on the Will G incident. I can't imagine a sponser really putting big money on him, regardless of what happens here. He may have done a service by exposing lab procedural problems, but this is probably mostly limited to the one lab, and under any circumstances I'm sure Landis didn't decide to spend a million dollars just to prove a point. In all, and I think I may be typical of the public, I think he doped, no matter what the result of the arbitration, and no matter if he even deserves to win the arbitration based on testing irregularities. To me, he'll be like OJ; he won his case, but so what.

Anonymous said...

In response to 10:21. We are all, of course, entitled to our *beliefs." But, we should aknowledge that they are, by and lagre, faith-based. When confronted with a contradictory set of facts, be they partial or complete, we are each tasked with the question of what conclusions to draw. We can proceed, on faith, they we are just "right." Or, we can take a more nuanced position. You are convinced that Floud doped, others are convinced that he didn't. So, there you have it. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin. You say 1, and I say 1 million. Youh can't prove it, and neither can I. We can, if pressed, try to make a decision one way or the other. This is what the science should be about, if we can only bother to pay attention, incomplete as the data might be.

Anonymous said...

Memo to file:

Landis is a big time steroid user.

David Clinger said Landis abused EPO and hGH too at USPO. That was a Lance Armstrong team.

Steroids based upon cortisone and testosterone.

Polyphamracy for the naive!

Anonymous said...

The USA media has already declared Floyd Landis as a LOSER, a doper, a cheat, and a rotten low life rat.

Commercial marketing was the only purpose of this hearing.

Landis will be banned and he will save his other doper friends in the proicess. One doper punished so that millions can go free.

Landis will be DQed for the TDF, the first time in 104 years.

Lance Armstrong was exempted.

Anonymous said...

Easy conclusions for the presumptuous. "The world is black." "No, it's white." "No, black." And so my 3 year old son, along with anonymous 10:38, arrive at comfortable conclusions about the complexities of the world.

Anonymous said...


Science cannot make the decision, science can only present data or facts. Science in this case cannot prove that FL did not use can only try to say what level of testosterone was found in his urine. When even that scientific effort is found to be riddled with errors and flawed methodology (that violate the International Standards), then that part of the science should not be used as "fact" to try to establish that FL doped. Without that evidence, we have no other evidence...just beliefs on one side or the other. Are we really saying we should convict people and take away their livelihood in the absence of sound scientific evidence simply because we "believe" they are guilty?

Anonymous said...

It's spelled "puddle". Learning to spell might make it easier for you to be credible.

Anonymous said...

Paddle, puddle, doper, weasel, rat, steroid addict all aplly to Floyd Landis.

Medicated Mennonite too.

Greg Lmeond said it best, 'the public is seeing another side of Floyd'

The creepy doper side.

Anonymous said...

Anon @10:38AM - see anon @10:37 about faith based conclusions.

Without good science, the guilty may go unpunished and the innocent may be falsely sanctioned. All hail the "true believers."

Since this whole fiasco regarding sport has subordinated science to political motivated agenda, unfortunately all we are left with is faith. "If it was good enough for the Hebrew children, it is good enough for me" as the old hymn goes. Character is important to faith based evaluations, but it is not proof of anything.

Vitriolic rants of any persuasion are usually not much more than a gauge of one's passion (positive or negative) for a belief. The most disturbing aspect to this whole affair is that there seem to be so many who are willing to discard truth, innocence until proven guilty, due process, and habeas corpus.

Any allegation that Lance Armstrong doped is tantamount to the Bush Adminstration's assertion Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Faith really can move mountains.

Anonymous said...

I think the point is, even if Landis wins, his chances for big time money are probably bleak. This will probably be due to the Will G. thing mostly. In retrospect, it was probably a mistake, therefore, to have the open hearing. But who could have forecasted this?

Anonymous said...

Faith was pretty important in Salem back in the day...they burned alot of witches because everybody just KNEW that they were witches.

Anonymous said...

Anon 10:05

Truce... I agree with the essence of what you said, especially now that you've clarified.

However the term "steroid" has a very specific chemical definition, that gets muddied in common parlance. Clearly you know the difference between the two, but many of the posters here may not.

I know I tend to err on the side of chemically precise... I'm a chemical engineer.



Bolivar said...

AJ -
the majority of the 12 had exemptions for asthma medication (a steroid), how in the hell do you race at that level with asthma - aint so! Supposedly there are over 60 riders with Asthma med exemptions, I would like to see that list.

Anonymous said...

Goeghegan's call to Lemond proves one of two possibilities or both:

1. Floyd is guilty and his manager, under the influence of liquid courage, tried to prevent LeMond from testifying. The same as O.J. fleeing in the bronco. Guilty!


2. Floyd is an ass and he can't help it. He's told all his people about LeMond's kiddy story to belittle him as retribution for LeMond's outspoken view of Floyd's guiltiness. So his bizarro manager thought he would have a little fun and did not recognize that the call would be construed as witness tampering by a guilty party.

I mountain bike raced with Floyd in Northern California about 10 years ago and the guy would not shut up before the race at the rider's meeting; during the race when he obviously was kicking everyone's ass and after the race when he didnt think the prizes were sufficient.

There is a serious problem with character, ethics and morals on his part. But did he dope? His attorney's are punching holes all over USADA's case at this point. You can still be an ass without being a dope.

Anonymous said...

Bolivar: regarding asthmatics in the pro peloton. Anecdote for you. I suffer from asthma only occasionally now and usually from airborne allergens or exercise induced (especially in cold weather). I have been treated in the past by both steroid and non-steroid medications. I can understand how it may be difficult to believe a pro cyclist could suffer from asthma. But I think it is entirely possible since asthma is not necessarily related to cardiovascular fitness. It is an auto-immune disorder and some people have genetic predispositions for it.

Anyone who has ever suffered a sudden asthma attack is grateful for the medicines available to treat and prevent. I have difficulty believing that the recommended doses would give a non-asthmatic any measurable performance enhancement above a placebo effect, but this is merely conjecture.

Asthma is on the increase, especially in the US and sadly many lives are lost to it every year.

Bolivar said...

anon 1202, no offense but I race at a pretty high level across the US. You are correct it is possible to race with asthma - but not a three wk stage race at this level. It places too much stress on the immune system going that hard for 20 days. Imagine going as hard as you can for 20 days straight, the asthmatics would be inhaler in hand the second half.
I have seen guys w/o asthma use the medication as well - it opens the capilaries in the lungs and helps transfer more oxygen, they also use allergy medicine like clarinex, it allows the HR to go further and you can go harder.

Anonymous said...

I think bolivar nailed part of it. Exercise enduced asthma is getting more and more common. Think about a bunch of guys riding at the ragged edge of endurance at high altitude in cold dry air. Even a very mild asthmatic could suffer in those conditions. Unfortunately though...the side effect is that once they have the exemption, nothing says they have to take the small typical dose...they can pretty much take any dosage they want (within reason), as the positive would be written off due to their exemption.

Anonymous said...

I am playing catch up again. Did a comment similar to yorus in a prior post today. When Catlin testified it was against the background of the WADA labs being "accredited" by someone to do the tests and subject to periodic quality control testing by WADA (where's that data?). Lab directors would not travel around and watch the other labs work. The lad directors called by USADA/WADA did testify to some variations in the work product of labs, but given the accerdidation, quality control testing, etc., it is understandasble that they would have fairly high confidence in the test results from one of the other labs.

If they do put Brenna on, then there will be some moments of truth for his scientific integrity.

Anonymous said...

What about Oscar?

Bolivar said...

Rest my case!