Wednesday, May 16, 2007

Hearing - Weds Mongongu Cross I

Waiting to begin session.

Arnie saunters in. Campbell comes in, with a bottle of water, picks at the exhibit books. Geoghegan, Brooke, Amber, Floyd. Paul and Arlene have been here a while. Geoghegan goes back and gets more books.

Landis is seated to the left side of the defense table, angled in a way that makes it easy to look back at his family, seated in front of the bar, over his right shoulder.

Max brings in a big box. He's the utility brother-in-law. The room fills up. Goes quiet. Campbell isn't here now.

McLaren, Brunet, Campbell walk in, find the power for their laptops. Campbell has a strikingly patterned, tie, Brunet and McLaren have more conservative ones. Birds of a feather?

Brunet: Let's resume, and get appearances.


Brunet: Time allotments there was email last night. Each party started with 23 hours total of examination and cross. After first day, Landis 20.6; USADA 20.5; Yesterday, 19.6 16.5

Suh: in timing, Saturday or not?

Brunet: still reviewing, will probably discuss with counsel tomorrow. Prepare tonight for discussion.

Brunet: Miss Mongongu, please return to your chair.

She walks with a bounce.


Jacobs: Miss Frelat testifying on similar matters, can she not be in the room for Miss Mongongu.

May be bad

Q: The LNDD is the only anti-doping lab you've worked at?
A: yes.

Q: Covering training. You got trained by a supervisor
A: analyst not supervised.

Q: who:
A: Monique Richard (sp?)

Q: when?
A: feb 2003

Q: how long was it?
A: the whole period of internship, to jul 2003

q: also from Pascal Carmontier from Micromass
a: yes

q: when
a: when started to work as an analysit in sep 2003; he'd come when I needed help?

q: how many times did you ask for his help? over what time?
a: several, we have a contract with them; over a long period, can't tell more specifically.

q: if you had a question you could call him and ask a question?
a: he would still come to do maintenance on the instruments. when he'd do so, I'd get training.

q: how many times did you get training from him?
a: i would say at least about 10 times or more.

q: what subjects did you call him about and ask for assistance?
a: when it was not working correctly.

q: when was that?
a: I couldn't give you dates; it was all during my period; we have a contract with them.

q: were there times you noticed the instrument not working and called?
a: yes.

q: how many times?
a: i couldn't tell you exactly, i don't remember.

q: not exact, 2, 3 a thousand?
a: let me think ... ... i would say about 10 times over several days.

q: what is the period? when were those days?
a: I couldn't tell you.

q: year?
a: I know since i've been there since 2003 they've come on a number of occasioins.

q: when did you call?
a: that I called?

q: i thought that's what you testified?
a: Let me start again. Since sep 2003, we have a contract. He comes once or twice a year for PM, and also comes if we have any concerns.

q: I thought you said that you called him because you were having problems?
a: yes.

q: over a number of years or over a few days.
a: ten times I called them was when I first started, more when I was becoming accustomed to the instrument. as far as times I've called, I couldn't give you an exact number.

q: only interested in times when you called because you were having problems with the machine, not times you called wanting to know how something worked.
a: ok
q: I thought I heard you say you called him 10 times because the machine wasn't working correctly?
a: I think i lost the thought.

BRUNET: was the machine broken, and did you call him then?

a: yes.

q: thank you. Was it about 10 times?
a: yes or maybe more.

q: best estimate?
a: can't seem to come up with a number.

q: if you say 12 and its 13, i don't care. best guess?
a: it's a hard question, in fact. ...

Jacobs, hand in pocket waiting...

a: I can't seem to remember.

McLaren: Why don't you narrow to 2006 and 2007?

q: LNDD has two irms machines?
a: yes.

q: of the approx times you've called, about both machines or one?
a: for the first machine.

q: for the machine used to test 995474
a: yes.

q: do you remember what was wrong with the machine on any of those occasions?
a: problems i had with the machine. Well there wasn't good stabilisation, so when you have to clean the source, so it's not precise because the lack of stability.

q: any other issues you called them about when the machine was broken?
a: as far as I remember, those are why i'd ask for help.

q: Over what year or years did you call them about lack of stability with this machine?

[ the interpreter is very good. ]

q: 2003, 2004, including 2006?
a: or stabilization or a source that needed to be cleaned.

q: when was the first time you called them about problems?
a: the first time I called was in 2003, around September; end of the year.

q: about when was the last time?
a: as far as I remember, GV became involved in 2005 for PM.

q: when was the last time you called about problems in the older machine?
a: I wouldn't be able to say.

q: 2006?
a: I simply don't remember?

q: can't narrow to year?
a: frankly, no.

q: we know you got training from LNDD and micromass. Have you received training from WADA?
a: yes, but not on the level of the instrument?

q: other training by WADA?
a: no.

q: trained by USADA, except about the case?
a: no

q: training from any other WADA accredited laboratory?
a: no.

q: covering specific areas of training. Any training on manual integration?
a: yes, from the previous analyst who was training me.

q: Can you describe the training?
a: yes. to verify the background noise is correctly set by the software; then after tha one needs to verify the integration of the peaks with regards to the traceability of the ratio 45/44 and that's it.

q: how long did that training take?
a: all during my internship, and as long as that analyst was there, he was training me. over several months.

q: do you have responsibility for maintenance of the machine?
a: did you get training on the instrument maintenance?

q: describe that training?
a: training from the same analyst and also from application engineers and those specializing in the use in the instrument.

q: they told you what to do?
a: yes.

q: they told you how often to do it?
a: yes, when it was necessary?

q; did they show you how?
a: yes.

q: specific training on the OS2 Optima software?
a: yes, they showed me how to use it.

q: who?
a: Pascal.

q: give you the manual?
a: no. showed me directly on the software.

q: what did he show you?
a: what the options were, how to do a peak center.

q: anything else specific?
a: how the software ran the instrument.

q: he showed you features that can be turned on or off?
a: yes, he showed me how to use it.

q: during the training, did he discuss log files at all?
a: no.

q: do you know if it's possible to print logs from the OS2 software.
a: no, don't know.

q: did you get separate training on the masslynx software.
a: yes. forom Mr. Parmantier and Mr. Nguyen

q: when
a: when we got the new instrument, june 2005

q: were you shown the differences in the software?
a: he showed me how to use it?

q: did he discuss the log file function with you?
a: no.

q: do you know if Mr. Parmentier installed the machines at LNDD?
a: the first machine, I don't know, i wasn't there. the second machine was installed by Nguyen, mr Parmentier also.

q: were you present?
a: yes?

q: you talked yesterday about priming. Did you get training how or when to do that?

[translator -- can you explain priming? ]
q: I was hoping she could tell us.

q: who trained you on priming?
a: Mr. Nguyen, who was still there.

q: when?
a: when he was finished installing, he showed me how to use it?

q: did you get training in how to do pipetting?
a: yes. I received training in how to prepare a sample.

q: during the LNDD training about how to do anti-doping testing, were you provided any of the WADA technical documents to review?
a: yes. I was shown the various techniques, preparation used for the laboratory.


q: have you seen this before.
a: yes.

q: did you review this during your training at lndd.
a: I did see it.

YOUNG: if you're going to ask here questions abot it, we have a French copy.

PROVIDED; Exhibit 99

Q: you understood that your work needed to comply?
a: yes.

q: turn to english, p35, section; you understood from this section that any changes in data need to be recorded with an audit trail? Have you reviewed the section?
a: yes.

q: you understood that if you made any mistakes, you had to document them, correct?
a: i'm sorry, I'm not sure?

q: did you undertand from this document, that if you made a mistake, that mistake would have to be documented?
a: yes.

q: did you understand if you made a change to a document package, it needed to be done in a way that could be tracked?
a: yes.

q: and that if you started any process over, during the testing, you'd have to document that as well?

YOUNG: are we talking about any process? Or what is he talking about starting over?

q: did you have an understanding as to what types of things had to be documented during testing if you started over on an injection, or started an entire process over, what was your understanding?

a: each time I would start something again?

q: your understanding of this requirement about what had to be documented?
a: what i understand from this paragrpah is that any modifications, let's say if I make a mondification to any entry about the relationship of establishing the report, it must be tracedable. That's what I understand it to mean.

q: did you get training from LNDD about steps to preserve evidence that might be used in an anti-doping proceeding?
a: i would say yes.

q: what was your training?
a: well, on the level of quality management...

q: you understand the work you do is for testing athletes samples for prohibited substances?
a: yes.

q: you understand that in a positive test, it may be contested?
a: yes.

q: and the athlete has the right to look at the evidence?
a: yes.

q: so you understand you can't destroy evidence along the way?
a: yes.

q: Let's talk about 994574. You were involved in the A sample IRMS?
a: yes.

q: and verified the B?
a: yes.

q: I think you said the verfier ensures the SOP was followed?
a: yes.

q: to verify the scientist complied with the SOP, did you watch her perform every step?
a: if I was present, yes.

q: and you watched the analyst perform every step?
a: well there's an entry log where you say what you are doing?

q: so you do it by looking at the log, not by standing and observing?
a: yes.

Brunet: Present or log?

a: Looked at the entries.

q: Did not watch her perform, verified by examination.
a: yes.


q: this is the CoC for the bottle.
a: yes

q: operator 49 is you, right?
a: yes.

q: this is to show where the bottle is at all times.
a: yes, and who has control.

q: you have this jul 22 11:23 in room 104 for confirmation irms.
a: yes

q: where did you get the bottle from?
a: from the confirmation room of the TE ratio, seems to be room 103.

q: what time?
a: the CoC shows did aliquots at 11:20

q: when did you get possession of the bottle?
a: when I did the aliquot.

q: 11:20
a: yes.

q: who from?
a: in the te ratio room

q: where was it?
a: in the room? on the rack.

q: is that documented anywhere in the package?
a: no.

q: do you have an independent memory of taking the bottle from the rack from the confirmation room?
a: well, i had to take the bottle to take the aliquot?

q: how do you know you took if from the rack?
a: because that's where I took it from?

q: you remember?
a: yes, i can see myself picking up the bottle?

q: but it's not documented, correct?
a: no.

q: Is it true there is no documentation showing you got the bottle from the rack in room 103 at 11:20 on Jul 22?
a: that document there shows that I picked up the sample to perform the analysis at 11:20.

q: It shows you picked it up, but not where you picked it up from, correct?
a: no.
q: it is true the document shows where you picked the bottle up?
a: where from? no.

q: how long did you have the bottle?
a: [looks at form] just the time to do the aliquot.

q: how did that take?
a: it takes 2-5 minutes, let's say 5 minutes.

q: so you had it for 5 minutes?
a: yes.

q: what did you do with the bottle when you were done with it for 5 minutes?
a: after that operator 18 took possession?

q: are you saying op 18 took possession at 11:25?
a: well, what's written is that 18 took it for storage.

q: so that would be until 11:25. The next entry is that 18 has it at 12:45, correct?
a: he stores it at 12:45.

q: is there any documentation when operator 18 took the bottle from you?
a: no.

q: so your memory is that op 18 had the bottle around 11:25?

YOUNG: objection about "had the bottle" colloquialism.

q: you got the bottle at 11:20
a: yes

q: had it 5 minutes.
a: yes.

q: then op 18 took it.
a: well to store, what's written at 12:45.

q: you said you had the bottle for 5 minutes. where was the bottle between 11:25 and 12:45?
a: in the confirmation room.


a: I did the irms aliquot testing, and then I gave the bottle, gave the bottle back to Ester, operator 18.

q: at 11:25
a: as soon as I finished the aliquot?

q: specific recollection?
a: yes. I remember doing the aliquot and remember giving her the bottle so she could then do the density and ph test.

q: you were also involved in this case in reprocessing files on this sample?
a: yes.

q: within the last few weeks?
a: yyes

q: you did some, and someone else did another?
a: yes

q: you did the reprocessing of the A?
a: yes.

q: during this, you called for a associate to help with the reprocessing?
a: of my A sample?

q: yes.
a: I don't know what you are referring to.

q: did you ask anyone for help during the reprocessing of the A sample?
a: not to reprocess my results, no.



Anonymous said...

Username and Password posted on seems to be invalid.

12String said...

Username: LandisF
Password: wuP2e8RU
This works for me
The links on TBV both point to floyd fairness, but the u/pw is on

Anonymous said...

If you get in...don't close either window. you will get a window with all of the sessions available to view. Keep that open, and you will be able to refresh tomorrow with the new sessions. Also keep the viewer open. Even if the password changes you will be able to stay in if you leave these windows up.

Anonymous said...

Have become addicted to your transcripts. Frozen out of the streaming video
by "maximum number of connections" (damn work...). Don't see an update to
the "transcript" since before Mongongu began to testify. Help!

Keep up the good work!!

Anonymous said...

As French, I understand very well why Mrs. Mongongu has many difficulties to understand the questions. Some key word had a bad translation, it's not the fault of the translator, but from lawyer unable to do simple.

12String said...

Interesting cross. Does anyone else agree that 2 technicalities that should kill this particular test result a al Landaluze happened:
1. She participated in the A and B test. That is, she did the A and verified the B.
2. Chain of custody was broken more than once

Anonymous said...

"I'll say yes." Clearly she's not a cycling fan, otherwise she'd know that you can't say "I'll say . . ."

Anonymous said...

See something that could be more important than chain of custody - that can be cleaned up by USADA/WADA. She clearly indicates that as the verifying tech she would not necessarily be present but would look at the log kept by the operator.

This means that verification that standard operating procedure was followed by an operator depended on what the operator wrote down and not necessarlily actual observation of what the operator did. Economical, but hardly a good forensic practice if the verification was required.