Wednesday, May 16, 2007

Hearing - Weds Mongagu Part III

Slowly gathering at 2:03.

BRUNET: Welcome back everyone, Mr SUH if you'd like to continue.


q: page GDC 1064, gap at 15:31:14 to 15:39:16. can you say what happened?

[ these are all "processing complete" to "starting inlet method" gaps ]

a: no

q: 17:08 to 18:03, can you say?
a: no.

q: GDC 1066 10:27 to 10:54, can you say?
a: no

q: 11:26 commencing mix cal acetate, 12:09 saving file , 12:22:45, commencing again. see those?
a: yes.

q: next page 13:06, saving file, and of course the second save erased the first one, and is no longer part of the record, correct?

a: yes.

q: why did you run mixcal acetate again here?
a: because the first was undoubtedly not correct.

q: did you take any contemporaneous notes of the first being not correct?
a: no.

q: so the record of the one that was not correct no longer exists?
a: no (meaning yes?)

q: you remember the first is not correct from memory alone?
a: if I did a second, it's because the first was not correct.

q: in that frame, there's a timegap from 12:09 to 12:22. what happened there, if you remember?
a: no, i don't remember.

q: GDG 1069, 8:45:21 starting acq, 8:45:26 stability raw saved.
a: yes.
q: 8:47:35, starting acq, 8:48, saving to stability raw again.
a: yes.

OBJECTION to form of question, "did you do"

q: do you recall rerunning the sample?
a: no

q: 17:18 to 18:06, time gap. were you processing the sample at this time?
a: yes, that day, yes.

q: do you recall what happened during this time period?
a: no.

q: up the page gap 15:10 to 15:49, what happened there?
a: no.

q: GDG 1073, 13:09 begin cal mix acetat 01, 13:53 saving 01.raw;
a: yes.

q: 13:55, commencing again, then 13:55:43, save again same file, then 13:57, commencing analysis again, then 14:41 saving data again. See that? Erasing the data from the first two runs, correct?
a: yes.

q: why did you rerun the mix cal acetate 3 times?
a: what I'm able to see from the log is there was a first injection at 13:09, and a second at 13:55, and with the isoprime instrument there was some problem and it didn't perform the acq because at 13:55 what is written is isoprim is not waiting to acq, so at 13:57 there was a second injection of mix cal acetate.

q: you just described the fact there was a problem with the injection at 13:55, wait til running.
a: yes.

q: that's your answer as to why you injected three times?
a: that's why i injected twice.

q: how long does it take to run a mixcal acetate.
a: about 45 minnutes.

q: X by 13:09:02, then at 13:53, the data was acquired, about 45 minutes.
a: yes.

q: which means the first one ran with no problems, right?
a: oui, yes it was injected.

q: she didn't say that when I asked. After you reran this sample, why did you rerun it again with the same sample number, thereby deleteing the one from 13:09 forever?
a: because the mixcal that was run was not correct.

q: For the stage 17 test, you did the A. I'd like to show you USADA 155, when you look at it, that's your operator number 49.
a: yes.

q: USADA 181, tell me what the acquisition time and the current time shown.
a: acq time is time the injection is done, 10:53:36, and currently 11:39:17.

q: this is for the mixcal acetate 001A-100ng injected.
a: yes.

q: I'm going back to 155, there is is in the sequence.
a: yes.

q: what is the next thing that occurs?
a: the blank f3

q: then the f3 sample, blank f1, sample f1, .....
a: yes.

q: this is the f2 sample USADA 156, last thing in the sequence.
a: yes.

q: the acq time is 15:25, and current 16:06.
a: yes.

q: the last mixcal acetate USADA 183, acq time 20:39, and the current time is 14:24:44, the next day.
The reason to show these to you, is that the last sample fraction and the other is the last mixcal acetate.
How much time separated the mix cal acetate from the last sample?
a: about 5 hours.

q: so this last mixcal acetate was run about 5 hours later?
a: yes.

q: and theres no record what happened in those 5 hours.
a: correct.

q: this is the sequence that was supposed to run together.
a: yes

q: does the sequence automatically stop between the last sample and the mix cal acetate?
a: no

q: what happened in this 5 hours?
a: if the mix cal acetate was injected at 20:39, it's becasue on the level of the seqeuence I must have added at that time.

q: don't understand?
a: I remember there was some problem, and when I went to see the sequence had run properly, I saw the mixcal had not been injected, so placed it at the end of the sequence.

q: did you make any notes at the time to indicate you forgot to add the mix cal acetate.
a: no.

q: you say you didn't know it was Landis's
a: yes.

q: and this happend on july 23 2006,
a: yes.

q: do you remember way back then that you'd forgotten to add the mix cal acetate?
a: what I'm saying is if it was injected at 20:39 it was because I asked for the acquisition.

q; do you recall you testified you could not remember about the times you had called for service on the isoprime unit when it had a problem?
a: yes, I didn't remember the exact number.

q: you couldn't remember dates or times, but you remember this one irms test in july of 2006 that explains this time gap?
a: what I'm saying is that there is a sequence and that it was injected at 20:39, so that's what I'm saying.

q: we understand it was acquired 5 hours later. Why did you do it that way? You now remember of what happened in july 2006, without ever knowing at that time this was an unusual irms test in any way. Is that your testimony?
a: I said I injected the mixcal was injected at that time, and I can see that from the sheet at 20:39, that's what I'm saying.

q: the [previous] takes only 45 minutes, and the gap is 5 hours.
a: yes.

q: USADA 175, at the bottom you recognize your signed operator number, where you are validating the calibraiton of the instrument.
a: yes.

q: USADA 331, please confirm you were the supervising technician of the sample b irms.
a: yes.

q: once again, the same supposedly automatic sequence, 5 stability runs, 3 mixal irms, 1 mix cal acetate, blank, sample, ... finishing a mix cal acetate.
a: yes. that is the sequence of the sample.

q: USADA 360, what is acq and current time?
a: 12:24 and 13:45.

q: so it's perfectly clear, that is step 9 on 331.
a: yes.

q: now USADA 347, blank for f3.
a: yes.

q: that is step 10 at 331, supposed to be right after step 9.
a: well yes. It's the one that follows the mix cal acetate.

q: USADA 347 again, acq time and current time.
a: 17:03 and 7:47.

q: what is the time difference between the mix cal acetate to the blank f3 that was supposed to be run right afterwards?

Brunet: which ones?

SUH 347 and 360(?)

a: about 4-1/2 hours.

q: the mix cal usually takes 45 minutes.
a: yes.

q: what happened between the mix cal acetate and the blu f3?
a: nothing.

q: do you remember?
a: when I see the sequence, I see the mixcal ran before the blank.

q: that wasn't my question. do you remember what happened?
a: no.

q: but you remember what happened on the A?
a: on the one I did, yes.

q: USADA 354, the calibration of the instrument -- your operator number and signature for validation.
a: yes.

q: now going to talk about internal standards 5aAC,
a: ok.

q: you admitted in direct examinations there were a number of times in which the 5aAC was measured out of the measurement of error during the testing of stage 17. do you remember?
a: yes.

q: the internal standard-- where does the internal standar 5aAC appear? in which solution?
a: cal mix acetate.

q: it does of course appear in all the sample fractions, blank, sample, blank, and cal mix acetate.
a: yes.

q: and cal mix acetate contains 4 acetylated steroids, see USADA 354 [ walks through them by name ]
a: yes.

q: do you remember USADA 351,
a: yes.

q: this highlighted figure of -31.08. Which fraction that appeared in?
a: in the F1 of the sample.

q: that value is out of the measurement of error?
a: yes.

q: down here is one at -31.54. out of range, for F3, right?
a: when you are talking about being out of the error are we talking about what is applied for the mix cal acetate?

q: no, i'm talking about the error of the instrument to resolve 5aAC in the solution.
a: those crieteria are only applied for the mix cal acetate.

q: show me on this form where it says it is only applied to the values in the mix cal acetate?
a: well i see the calibration of the instrument and the values, and the interval,

q: this is out of range for the F1 - 31.64; this is out of for F2 -29 something.
a: yes.

q: your testimony is that it doesn't matter if it is outside of the measurement of error in the actual sample?
a: yes.

q: that the measurement error only applies to the cal mix acetatate for the 5aAC?
a: yes.

q: yesterday when you were talking about it, you said the cal mix acetate was different than the blank and the actual sample because there was matrix interference around the 5aAC peak in the blank and the actual sample.

a: that is the start of the chromatography. there was a matrix interference that you find at the beginning of the chromatograph.

q: so in other words, it's not important that the 5aAC gets measured accurately in the very sample that have resulted in the AAF here because there was matrix interference?

a: yes.

[ draws on paper under projector ]

q: internal standard 5aAC is added to each of these?
a: yes.

q: you are saying for all of the ones not mix cal acetate, it doesn't matter if the 5aAC is properly quantified for isotropic value because of interference.

a: yes.

q: it's only important in the cal mix acetate?
a: yes.

q: the calm mix acetate is a mix of 4 steroid acetates of known concentration and value in a solvent.
a: yes.

q: therefore it is a clean matrix?
a: yes.

q: because the chromatograms of a clean matrix are clean, without co-elution?
a: yes.

q: is it true that it is easier to get an accurate isotropic reading in a clean matrix than in a dirty matrix?
a: yes.

q: a dirty matrix has within it a lot of compounds.
a: yes.

q: and these cause matrix interference in the chromatogram if we don't prepare the sample properly?
a: yes.

q: And urine is a very dirty matrix?
a: yes.

q: Let me show you a chromatogram, USADA 164. Focus on the -29.94 peak. How many chormatograms have you looked at in the span of your career?

a: I would say perhaps a thousand or more.

q: and you know the difference between a peak that has matrix interference and one that does not?
a: yes.

q: look at this peak and do you see matrix interference?
a: to see if I have matrix interference it's difficult to look at this. I'd have to see the 45/44 ratio.

q: so your testimony is in order to know if this has matrix interference, we would have to have the 45/44 graph, right?
a: I can't answer by looking at this.

q: because you need what?
a: I need to look at the corresponding of the traceability of 45/44.

q: I would like to point out for the record that the very document the witness has said would be necessary to establish interference, we have never received, and we asked for them. Because we do not have the documents, we are going to stop cross now, and reserve right to recall this witness.

YOUNG: they agreed they had everything they need.

SUH for clarity, we have never said we have evereything we nened.

BRUNET: can you walk us through the 44/45?

She says it doesn't matter that they are not getting the right values because they get matrix interference on this peak. This picture is all we ever received.

When we look at the others, there are more interferences in the other peaks used to justify the AAF against mr. Landis. Yet this is cleaner, and we're told you can't identify this one, because of matrix interference.
She says you need a mass 44/45 graph, but we've never received any.

One of the ones we've seen Dr. Brenna showed.

I can point to the discovery request, number 13, jan 22nd, all documents that relate to identification of the peaks of interes.

Now in the beginning of this arbitration, she says she can't quantify this one that is outside the measurement error. If there is matrix interference there, there is certainly interference in the peaks of interest.

YOUNG: Respondent had every opportunity to resolve discovery. To be resolved by receipt of all the scans of the .

Request was about identificaiton, not quantification. When we look at this chromatogram at 164, we're hearing we have never been provided the m 44/45 by which she said she needed to identify matrix interference. That's what they got when the elsetronic data files were reprocessed.

Page 73 of the EDF as reproccesed. Steps up to projector. Shows two graphs, ion trace for 164 The numbers are what came of reprocessing. If he wants to ask, the data is here.

April 5th, Suh said discovery issues raised, did not make reference to C13 issue.

SUH: cites saying complete records are needed. Take a break to try to work out.

BRUNET: Would this generate other documents?

SUH: don't know. We know we don't have some of them?

BRUNET: 44/45 ratio only? or others?

SUH: don't believe matrix interference is applicable, but would be happy to resolve this.

YOUNG: agree internal is for identification, nor quantification.

SUH: not what I said.

SUH: we don't have all the files, we only have printouts of some of them.

RECESS, COME AND GET US in 15-20 minutes.


Anonymous said...

From earlier posts it appears that listed, prospective witnesses are permitted to attend unless an objection is raised and ruled on. Has the Landis team made use of this with its technical witnesses?

Anonymous said...

Great work here, guys and gals!

Can someone point me to the area where the link to media credentials would be?

Your work here is just stellar--thanks for caring!


MWesty said...

I'm not clear on the "B" sample test results. Can someone clear that up? L'Equipe said 4 positives, yet I read this morning somewhere else that there were only 2 positives.

How many "B" samples were tested for exogenous testosterone?
How many were "positive"?
What were the dates of the positive and not positive samples? Were there any gaps?
And, finally what is the threshold for a positive and what did the positive ones show?

Can anyone answer these questions?


cam said...

Cathy -- try the contact on the first page of

Anonymous said...

Mwesty, I believe there were 7 (confirmed) "B" samples tested and the report was 4 (not confirmed)came out positive.

I would say go hit Daily Peleton Forum, there is a couple of posts that can answer your questions fairly sure over there.

bill hue said...

Mwesty is correct. This morning, Ms Monongu testified to 2 "additional "B" samples that SHE tested (that she declared "positive"). There are 2 more additional "B" sample "positives". Ms Monongu may have tested these or Ms Ferlot, who testifies later, did. I can see where there was confusion.

The technical people are NOT subject to sequestration.
In fact, what really bothers me today is Cynthia Henson(?) of the WADA UCLA lab sitting with the USADA lawyers, virtually at counsel table and becoming clearly agitated passing notes during Monongu's testimony. She has had many conferences with Mr Dunn. In fact, one time she dropped some papers in her rush to pass her notes that Amber Landis had to reach over and retreive some of them for her because she didn't know she had dropped any of her notes.

brian said...

Thank you Mr. Suh for asking her how she can remember all these details when she couldn't remember what year her machine broke down.

This is the exact line of thought that I immediatly focused on when she started the "I don't remember" defense this morning.

She is totally worthless. I hope LNDD gets shut down by the new conservative president in France. This is an embarrassment.

Anonymous said...

Rhetorical question, I know, but under what rule is Cynthia Henson allowed to do what she's doing? Can Suh or Jacobs object to her doing this?

Ali said...

Apologies, you must be sick of hearing my voice, but I just wanted to say that I'd rather listen to your coverage than watch it live.

One of the reasons for this is that this is exactly the format I followed Floyd's victory on Stage 17 last year (whilst at work !) ... the TdF website had a live feed on the progress.

The irony (poetic justice ?) of his hearing being transmitted in exactly the same format as his historic stage victory is quite striking to me.

Go Floyd !.

Anonymous said...

Floyd is flying up the Morzine as we speak!

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the clarification. One mind boggling detail after another. Hope that if the UCLA techie does testify that they have time to ask her what she was doing. So unusual that I am not sure what the line is on evidence and questioning here. Worth a try in order to establish bias.
If the flow is from her to the attorney, then I can't think of any normal confidentiality that attaches.

Amusing to have your description of how she is conducting herself and compare it to the rules laid down by the IOC for decorum and avoiding distractions. Most of the judges I know would have steam coming out of their ears.

This may simply mean that those of us who wished that the most recent tests were done at UCLA misplaced our confidence.

brian said...

Obviously the UCLA tech wants to advance her career. I don't know if there is anything bad about what she is doing. Landis has Dr. Baker and he basically stole the #2 guy from UCLA to be on his team. This lady basically works for USADA, so why can't she be thier expert helper at the trial?

Anonymous said...

Cathy, you may be SOL on credentials. Deadline for applications was April 11.

Anonymous said...

Kick there a$$ suh. Beat down Young and USADA.

My guess is the 45/44 graph is damning to the USADA case. Otherwise why hold back the rope for Landis to hang himself? I would be extremely surprised if the 45/44 graph did not show interference.

USADA Sucks, TT and his minions should be run out of the country. hell give them to France.

Atown, Tx.

Anonymous said...

There is a difference between being an expert witness and being an advocate. In theory the lab personnel should be neutral in their conduct. If she has been hired as a consultant to assist them in their case, then she better be ready to say so because that immediately identifies her as biased. Question is whether that makes a difference to "the majority".

Her described conduct indicates to me that she sees a lot of problems with what the witness is saying and is trying to give USADA/WADA the questions or lines of question to rehabilitate the witness.