Campbell and Brunet were walking and talking together down the hall approaching the chamber.
BRUNET: please have seat. Welcome back Mr. Jacobs.
Q: During the break talk to anyone about CoC?
q: what makes you remember this particular test from last july?
a: when I see the document, i know the aliquot was done at 11:20.
q: I'm asking about your testimony based on what you always do, or something you explicitly remember?
a: i remember having performed the aliquot, and then I remember having returned the bottle?
q: how many aliquots do you do per year?
a: about 400 irms's in the time at the laboratory.
Q: of those 400 you specifically remember this one?
a: yes, I remember doing it, and giving the bottle to esther so she could continue her procedure.
q: you have a picture in your memory of this and what time you did it?
a: i don't remember the time, but I see here 11:20
JACOBS: I'm not characterizing anything, I'm asking a question.
BRUNET You are being asked very precise questions. You were asked about aliquots a year, and answered 400 total. This will go faster if you take a little time and answer the precise question.
JACOBS: Please read the last question.
a: yes, I do have an image of having done that.
q: this was done on Jul 22 2006, right?
q: what is the data of the next IRMS you did after this?
a: i don't know.
SUH converses with JACOBS.
q: you don't remember the date.
q: remember the time of the next irms aliquot you did?
a: no, i don't remember that.
q: you were also involved in doing the irms on other samples in this case.
q: the ones done in april talked about yesterday.
q: you submitted a declaration about that testing.
EXHIBIT 74. -- it's in English.
q: you remember giving this?
q: your signature?
q: written in english?
q: did you make sure you understood everything before signing it under penalty of perjury.
q: what did you mean "accosted"?
q: did he grab you?
q: did he physically interfere with your work?
a: because of disturbance.
On two previous B sample, observers stand back quietly.
q: so you don't have great experience with this?
a: well, two is enough?
q: I'm trying to find out what you mean by disruptive? did either throw a sample on the floor?
q: did they touch the instrument?
q: did they physically prevent you from working?
a: the first two days they were very close to me.
q: you understand they have a right to observe what is going on?
q: and to observe, they have to be close enough to see what is going on?
a: close but not very close?
q: what is standing over your shoulder that made you uncomfortable?
a: yes, they were close?
q: standing right over your shoulder?
a: I was preparing, and they were right here.
q: you recall Dr. Brenna said he stood right over your shoulder, and you didn't complain about that?
a: well it isn't that comfortable with people that close to me when I work?
q: Did Brenna make you uncomfortable?
a: when anyone is too close to me when I'm working?
q: did you submit a declaration about him being too close?
q: you never filed a complaint except this declaration?
a: what I did was, I needed to be able to concentrate. I put a scotch tape on the ground where they were not supposed to step over, whomever.
q: in the middle of this retesting process?
a: after the first two days, exactly.
EXHIBIT 99, ISL IN FRENCH, Section 18.104.22.168.2.4
q: the ISL says that you have a right to have a witness removed if they interfere, correct? If you felt Mr. Davis and Dr. Scott were interfering you caould have had them removed?
q: you didn't do that.
q: shortly after the testing was done, the results were reported in L'Equipe.
q: april 24.
q: did you see the article?
MARK AS GDC 11234.
q: is this the article you saw?
a: it seems to be.
q: apr 24th, do you recall seeing it about that time?
a: more or less.
q: specifically mentions these tests that several were positive?
q: reported by damian ressiot of L'Equipe?
q: do you know him, spoken with him, any L'Equipe reporter?
q: were you aware L'Equipe had previously reported leaked information from LNDD?
q: did you leak it?
q; Did you ask M Frelat? Dr. de Ceurrizz?
q: did you ask anyone?
q: Did Dr. De Ceurrizz ever ask you?
q: do you know if he ever asked anyone?
q: Did he express any concern these confidential results were leaked within 24hours of their being complete?
a: he was not happy about it no.
q: what did he say to you about it.
a: I can't quote him, but he was not happy.
q: we'll ask him later. Now Mr. Suh.
MR SUH CROSS EXAMINES
q: We're going to begin with the log files.
APR 17 LOGS
q: do you recognize this as the first page we talked about yesterday.
q: and you did not see it until recently.
a: i saw them when they were taking out of the lab when Mr. Botre was there.
q: QC is a critical part of any labs work?
q: a critical part of WADA accreddited lab is QC?
q: the process you described yesterday for QC begins with stability runs?
a: could I have the sheet in front of me?
q: I'm not asking about that yet. Reread the question please.
a: first of all you start with...
q: The QC process begins with a stability run?
a: no, you start with focusing on the Co2 detection
q: that is a separate process from stability runs?
q: following that, the step is stability runs?
a: yes. that's it.
q: following them, calmix irms analysis.
q: following that, calmix acetate?
q: following that, samples and blanks for each fraction of hte sample?
q: followed by a cal mix acetate to wind it all up?
q: this process is called a sequence, correct?
a: well the sequence is separated into two. first there is the instrument verification, and then the sequence of the samples and the blank urine.
q: would you describe this as one sequence or two?
a: I suppose it could be one sequence, but I insist on the fact that there is the verification of performance, and then the injection of the samples.
q: the first part deals with QC?
q: and the second part has sample testing and QC?
q: and this sequence for each specimen runs automatically in the isoprime instrument?
q: in other words, once you start the sequence beginning with the stability, calmix, calmix acetate, blank, sample, blank sample, calmix acetete runs automatically?
a: you don't launch the sequence for everything.
q: the sequence is supposed to run together and automatically?
a: i'm not sure I understood.
q: earlier you described this as an automatic sequence?
a: yes, you start the sequence.
q: after you start it, the technician shouldn't need to interfere, it's automatic.
a: no, you can intervene.
q: it's designed to run automatically unless the technician intervenes?
a: the tech may decide to launch line-by-line.
q: it is a process by which they are supposed to run one right after another, and unless there is intervention, it will run automatically?
q: the ordering the sequence is run is important?
q: and run this way every time
q: and the results of each of these tests is important?
q: and the results from each of these tests are results that should be monitored in the testing process?
q: we do all of these for a reason?
PAGE 37 of USADAs BRIEF.
The mix cal acetate results form the controls run immediately befor and after the A and B samples were not only consistent with each other and the verified values established by Eurofina, the are also consistent with all other results from the MixCal Acetate controls control batch.
q: you would agree that the mix cal acetate for the B 17 should be run immediately before and after the sample for the procedure you just described.
q: you were asked a little bit about this yesterday. 11:42:51, which is "commencing mixcal 01" and followed by "saved to mixal 01.raw" followed four lines "commencing mixcal01" followed by "saved mixcal 01.raw "
q: yesterday you said you were the one who did this testing on the isoprime?
q: and your decision to give the same file name to each of the entries you give here.
q: and you realize when you use the same name, the old data is deleted.
q: and the reason why this occurred this time, is because you had to prime the liner?
[ BOTRE HELPS the INTERPRETER ]
YOUNG: what i think is important...
[ SLOWING THINGS DOWN BECAUSE THEY ARE FRENETIC AND HE DOESN'T LIKE WHAT'S HAPPENING ]
q: 11:4808, four entries...
q: prime liner?
q: when you prime the liner, what does that mean?
a: when you put a new insert on the instrument on the GC, you have to perform a few injections to condition it.
q: so it's your testimony that you started the sequence, beginning with a stability run, then stopped it, changed something in the insntrument, and then primed the liner?
a: no. priming the liner, above all; change the liner before you do the QC.
q: haven't you been taught to change the liner before you start the testing sequence, which should have been run in order?
a: don't understand
a: but the changing of the insert had nothing to do with the sequence.
q: what I understand you to be saying is that you did instrument maintenance after stability, before the sequence was completed?
a: the changing of the liner was done before all stabilisation.
q: the way to charge the liner after the stability run?
a: the stability is to see is the spectormeter is stable.
q: how many times have you changed the liner in the isoprime instrument.
a: a lot, a whole lot.
q: about how many?
a: Once or twice a week.
q: once or twice a week you change a liner and charge it.
q: you don't have any records you changed the liner at this point, do you?
a: well, it would be in the maintenance log next to the instrument.
q: did you consult the log prior to your testimony here?
q: you consulted the log before your testimony?
SUH: request LNDD produce this one day's maintenance log.
BRUNET: Seems fair to me. Can we get it during lunch?
YOUNG: We don't have it.
BRUNET: get back to us when you can get it.
Q: when else in april did you change the liner? how many times?
a: as i told you, once, or twice a week.
q: how many times in March 2007?
a: i don't know.
q: times in February?
a: i don't know?
q: how many times in may.
q: the only time you remember changing on a specific date is this here?
a: yes, because we were starting those specific analyses because I said to myself I'm going to change the liner and put a new one in.
q: I see. you're saying you changed it on april 17 in conjunction with these particular entries here.
a: each time i put a new liner in, I condition it.
q: you realize if you condition it, you could do it with a different file name?
a: i could have but i didn't do that.
q: believe you testified yesterday : 12:17:43 mixcal irms 01 was the one you intended to keep.
a: yes, that's where I started.
q: the is the one you intended to use.
a: once I did my two injections into charge the liner, I started doing the analysis of the precision of the instrument.
a: from what I remember, the one at 11:48:08 and 11:49 and 12:06 those were to charge the liner.
q: the one to keep is 12:17?
a: that's where I started to check the precision
LNDD 921-1014; USADA EX 87. DOC PACK
q: show me where in those pages you see the results for this test of cal mix 01 starting at 12:17?
q: it's not in the doc pack is it?
q: next page on the log file. 14:42:01, opening sample log file, and onto next page GDG1058 a number of entries that say processing sample 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 you see that?
q: you see between the two series there's a 10 minute delay at 15:34:38 to 15:46:27. what happened to that 10 minute gap?
a: I'm not sure what that represents.
q: there's a time gap of 10 minutes. What happened?
a: i don't know.
q: let's go to the bottom 15:48:26, below there is an entry at 18:21:42, a 2-1/2 hour gap. what happened in that 2-1/2 hours?
OBJECT: lack of foundation, was this operator working the instrument at this time
SUH: we had an agreement we weren't going to make foundation objections. And in the spirit of arbitration, we'd resolve those afterwards.
a: i don't know.
q: time entry at 19:52:43 same day. 20:17:24 the result is run, and again at 21:08:26, on the Blank F2.
q: of course the data from the preceding one is gone.
q: why did you decide to start this sample run over again?
GDC1058 is being looked at.
q: why does this record show you deleted data from the first run and started again?
a: there was no data from the first run because there was no complete processing.
q: and you remember that?
a; i see it there on the log.
q: aside from this, do you have any other notes that help you remember the processing was stopped.
a: no, it's there.
q: what is there that tells you the processing was stopped?
a: you see, at 19:52 it says "commencing'; at 20:17 it says it is saved. There is no written entry that the processing was complete, where there was in the case of 21:08 wnere it says processing complete in the book.
Suh tries to get to GDC1060
YOUNG asks to see the book of 1058 on the screen. [ He needs to learn quickly what this is about. ]
q: why was the processing incomplete?
a: To put in Liquid nitrogen in the cold trap
q: how did you know to do that?
a: at the end of a certain time, for the sequence to continue, I have to refill.
q: how do you remember at that time you had to stop the sequence for a refill?
a: I do it all the time before starting, I always add LN.
q: how do you know at this time , on this occasion you stopped to do that?
a: [wrinkles brow] I can't say, I don't remember specifically, but I do do this as part of the procedure.
q: so you're assuming this time you filled the cold trap?
GDG 1060, 9:49:41, gap to 10:04:53
q: you see about a 10 minute gap, you see that?
q: do you remember what happened there?
q: same page, 11:21:41, unclear line, to 12:16:27; can you tell us what happened during the two legible entries?
q: down to 17:37:52, gap to 18:28:27 about 50 minutes, what happened in that gap?
a: when I'm looking at the book here, there were two samples injected on that day. [ chin in hand ] so I don't know what happened in that gap.
q: 19:12:45 to 19:29:17, 16 minutes. What happened there?
a: don't know.
[ Outside smoking? wonders someone here]
q: GDC 1063 10:52:15 11:09:42, there?
a: don't know.
q: 11:54:09 12:29:52, there?
a: no, but was I on the instrument at that particular time.
q: question is whether you know anything about it.
BREAK FOR LUNCH