Hearing - Weds Mongongu Part V
Brunet is here when I get in, Campbell comes in next, Mclaren, last. Jacobs and Dunn and Barnett are at the bench.
It's now 4:44, with a scheduled stop at 5:00
[MORE]
Brunet: welcome back, Mr Young, you may proceed.
REDIRECT by YOUNG
Q: We talked about the S17 sample and the other tour samples that were analysed.
a: yes.
[ holding up a BLUE pen in left hand]
q: at the time you were doing the analysis of the S17 A, did you have any way of knowing whether that sample belonged to Mr. Landis?
a: no.
[ He's holding up a RED pen in his right hand now ]
q: In april, when you and Claire Frelat were analyzing 10 samples, did you know that 7 of those 10 samples belonged to Mr. Landis?
a: yes.
q: did you know which of those 10 samples were Mr. Landis'?
a: no
q: USADA 0360, this is the mix cal acetate Mr Suh was asking about.
a: i remember.
q: his question was what happened the acq time time at 12:24 and the sample take 45:00 to run, and the start of the analysis of the blanks and the athlete's samples.
a: yes.
q: USADA 302, this is the sample right? Ms. Frelat was responsible?
a: yes.
q: in this line, what does it say she was doing?
a: 4-aug 2006, Claire Frelat did a solution at 16:08.
q: the first step is to take the dried residue and dissolve it with with hexane?
a: yes.
q: 16:58; what happens at 17:00
a: then she starts the injections at gcc irms.
q: this is USADA 347, Is this consistent with the instrument acq at 17:03.
a: yes.
[ shuts book loudly ]
q: you've talked about adding an internal standard to the blanks and the sample fractions.
a: yes.
q: why do you add an internal standard?
a: the internal standard allows us to calculate the relative retention time of the molecules analyzed.
q: is that to make sure you are looking at right peaks?
a: yes.
q: do you use it for any quantitative delta value?
a: no.
q: every day before you start to run athlete samples on the irms, do you run pulses of CO2 through the instrument?
a: yes.
q: you do that do make sure the instrument is stable?
a: yes.
q: if there is a problem with that doing that, do you run the samples?
a: no.
[ suh and jacobs smile ]
q: you talked about pascal and the training? did he talk to you about acceptable limits of operating pressure for the instrument.
a: yes.
q: what did he tell you?
a: when the pressure goes above 6e-6, that I have a problem.
q: did he say it was ok to operate below that pressure?
a: yes.
q: when he'd come in for routine maintenance, would he leave it set at any particular pressure?
a: yes, he'd leave the instrument at pressure equal to 5.5 or 5.6e-6
q: would he leave it set at a lower pressure too?
a: yes.
q: you talked about when you ran the samples on Apr 16 on the second instrument with micromass s/w?
a: yes.
q: and the machine was acquired in 2005?
a: yes.
q: when was it put into operation?
a: after we did technical verification on the instrument, but I don't remember.
q: sometime after the Landis A and B were analysed?
a: ummm, yes.
q: when Claire Frelat was preparing the B sample for analysis, do recall whether you were in the same room?
a: yes, at a certain point is was there with the observer of Mr. Landis.
q: when Frelat was doing the analysis on the instrument, were you there?
a: yes.
q: USADA 253, Is room 103 within the controlled area of the laboratory where you can't go unless you are escorted by lab staff?
a: yes.
q: behind 3 locked doors?
a: yes.
q: is room 104 also in that controlled area?
a: is freezer one in that controlled area?
[ he's still chipping at the CoC issues ]
q: you see that Ester Cerpolini was there?
a: yes.
q: is room 103 always where Esther does TE aliquots?
a: yes.
q: is that where you would always go to prepare an irms aliquot?
a: yes.
q: is that always where you would put the sample back?
a: yes.
[ brunet looks blankly at young]
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS
RE-CROSS BY SUH:
q: do you recognize , this lndd 1749, ex 110 chromatogram as a chromatogram from the isoprime2?
a: yes.
q: lndd 1748, do you recognize as the report of the isoprime2?
a: yes.
q: you recognize the date as oct 10, 2005?
a: yes.
q: time prior to Mr. Landis' sample?
a: yes.
[ this must demonstrate falsification of operation start after Landis samples; they had the new machine to use, but didn't. ]
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS
CAMPBELL: USADA 253, If we look at the line for you line at 11:20h, you gave this to Esther after making the aliquot?
a: yes.
q: for the density and ph test?
a: yes, so she could do those.
q: as I look at the next line, I see stockage?
a: yes.
q: so she did the density and ph and then put it in storage?
a: yes.
q: is it true you are required to understand the ISL as part of your job requirement?
a: I have to have read them, yes.
q: do you have to understand them?
a: yes.
[ McLaren is looking at Campbell a bit incredulously. Brunet is also confused by the questions. ]
q: is this the LDP for the tested sample 993855 [ one of the additiona B's ]
a: yes.
q: is this the one that identified the presence of a prohibited substance
a: I'm looking at the results of the analysis. On page 1106, the conclusion states that the origin of the metabolites was objectified of isotropic depletion of 4.1 and 4.6 per mil for 5bA and 5aA.
q: is this a report of the presence of a prohibited substance or metabolite or marker?
a: there is an analysis report of the sample where LNDD finds, on 1108.
q: (re-asks)
a: yes.
q: what is the french ISL? Ex 99.
[ Campbell glances at landis, at his paper, at mongongu, waiting for her to find page ]
q: please find 3.1 for the definition of terms. Please read the definition of an adverse analytical finding.
a: [ pretty much what Campbell asked about twice. ]
q: does this report in exhibit 88 record an adverse analytical finding?
a: yes.
[ he is getting to admissibility and use of the samples at all. ]
Campbell: thank you.
Barnett: begin 8:30, with Frelat, then Ayotte, and then Greg Lemond, and may interrupt LeMond.
SUH: housekeeping, given the number of witnesses, issue of Saturday may come up, we'd like to give them notice. Time set on discussion evidentially issues.
Brunet: what we discussed earlier will apply to both parties.
ADJOURNED.
26 comments:
So did Suh get any benefit from all that questioning? Or did the failure at the end ruin it all?
I agree, Suh killed a good thing that he had going.
The air went out of the room, for sure. but i suspect he has used this to set something else up. if not, great momentum was lost.
Maybe it's better left alone as it is for grounds for an appeal.
cleduc
USADA just said they intend to call Greg Lemond tomorrow? What can Lemond possibly have to say that is relevant here?
Jim T, absolutely nothing! LeMond doesn't know a thing, but maybe will bring up some mystical conversation he thinks he had with Floyd. What a crock! The simple fact that the greatest cyclists in the world are in FL's corner says it all. Eddy and Lance. What more need be said...
Mike
Green MTN.
USADA just said they intend to call Greg Lemond tomorrow? What can Lemond possibly have to say that is relevant here?
... or anywhere?
I wonder if Landis's lawyers have any idea.
This is just weird.
Let me try to get this all straight as life intruded (I ate dinner).
1) Duckstrap and You3 are geniuses as they said a chromatogram can't be confirmatory without the mass spec as substances other than the ones of interest can appear at the same time. Mass spec data allows you to identify all substances and discards the irrelevant ones.
2) Mme. Mongongu confirmed this as she would not identify the substance of interest without the mass spec.
3) Mr. Suh was getting to that place as well, but was having difficulty explaining this to the arbitrators. He did say we haven't received this data.
4)Mr. Young said you have received this data (note - from the May reprocessing, not from the original run), see p. 73 (or whatever page Mr. Young said).
5) Mr. Suh asked for a recess (angry).
6) I ate dinner. Mass confusion ensued, but it seems as if USADA made their point. Mr. Suh tried to point out that the only data they received was from the reprocess, and highly synthesized, but that didn't seem to be getting much traction.
7) Mr. Campbell takes the stage, but the final result is Mme. Mongongu confirms that she sees an Adverse Analytical finding.
8) Possible redemption for Mr. Suh et. al -- does the May 5th document contain mass spec data for every run?
But then what contribution can Merckx and Lim make to FL's defense?
Proving that the Stage 17 victory was based on tactics and within FL's performance history does not overrule an AAF.
If a rider comes last in a stage and was picked by random can he claim his lack of performance is a defense against an AAF?
Lemond and Merckx are on the witness list as a counter to each other and for PR value.
He's going to tell everyone that clearly Floyd was using positraction like in a 64 Skylark.
Get signed in on the video stream early tomorrow because that's going to be a good viewing. I'll be upset if the stream is maxed out.
What's Eddy providing to Landis' team? Granted, since Axl was a Phonak rider and conversations between Eddy and Floyd are documented, I can see the connection better than between USADA and Greg's usual "I talk to everyone on the phone and they just keep denying it!"
Cheryl, what Campbell did there at the end is very important. This has to do with whether the B samples from other stages can be admitted as evidence. He got Mong. to say that what she did with the other B samples was report an AAF, and the WADA Code explicitly says you cannot use other B samples to report an AAF. You have to read Campbells dissent on the first interlocutory decision to really understand. He just got admitted into the record that admitting the B samples from the other stages as evidence is directly forbidden. Now whether it will work or not is unknown. McLaren and Brunet can just decide to break the rules if they want.
Cleduc, that's not how an appeal works in this process. You don't appeal procedural issues of the hearing, you just appeal the decision and everything starts afresh, with new rules, btw. You don't have to have "grounds for an appeal" just the desire and ability (read $$$) to do so.
Cool. Thank you, SYI.
I can't wait for the Lemond cross. I can see Suh totally getting Lemond rattled and really bring out the bitterness that Lemond seems to have that he didn't become the greatest american cyclist. Even in the press Lemond doesn't seem able to hide his jealousy so when he's under cross examination the sparks could fly.
I can't imagine where this Lemond thing is going to go. But doesn't Lemond claim that he had some discussion with Floyd (a phone call, right?) in which Floyd somehow admitted doping? Floyd completely denies it, and said some pretty harsh things on DPF about Lemond.
I am no fan of Lemond, but let's not forget that he was a great cyclist. The first American to win the TdeF. He may be obnoxious now, but he was great.
I think some people may forget that Lemond was the person who brought Wordin and Sunweb (?) together back in 2001. Lemond helped broker the deal to make the Mercury team go bigtime, and added support with his bicycle line. When things went sour, Lemond was the first to back out leaving the team high and dry. I wouldn't be surprised if Floyd has some recollection of this happening way back when, since it left him on a team not getting paid. With all the hype surrounding Lemond and possible conversations he has had with many implicated dopers one must question his motivations. The same should be said of Papp, a struggling amateur cyclist on the dope, but never making the big time...why testify now?
Mr. Idiot (since it's a badge of honor): My problem with Greg certainly wasn't his greatness. I love watching the footage of him racing and when I was 12 I WAS him whenever I hopped on my 2-ton Schwinn. However, my problem is how he views his measure of greatness and how he foists it upon others, denigrating all that came since. I'm no Pollyanna, I recognize the problems in cycling, but Greg's bitterness is a bit difficult to endure after all these years. He has some legitimate beefs, others are a tad sketchy.
20 years of slowly escalating righteous indignation, outside of all of the bickering he and Armstrong do, can make even the most ardent boyhood fan weary.
Gary, I fully agree. As long as we don't forget the first part, I have no problem with knocking him now.
Mr. Idiot
I can't imagine where this Lemond thing is going to go. But doesn't Lemond claim that he had some discussion with Floyd (a phone call, right?) in which Floyd somehow admitted doping? Floyd completely denies it, and said some pretty harsh things on DPF about Lemond.
*IF* Floyd really doped, why on earth would he discuss it with Lemond of all people? Why?
Couple-a-points:
Doping in cycling was going on strong even during Lemond's day. One Tour de France winner from that era, Pedro Delgado, was "busted" for using probenecide which is a testosterone masking agent and was just added to the list of UCI banned substances. Not sure of all the details but maybe Lemond's going to talk about Delgado using testosterone masking agents and how Delgado's performance increased during that time? Now that I think about it, guess that would be a stretch, and not very convincing testimony. I think he would be most qualtified to talk about stage racing and racing in the tour de france. The demands that it puts on a racer's body. The importance of recovery. How racer's mazimize recovery between stages (legally and illegally). Huh, don't know.
Second point about the Campbell questioning. I read the Interlockutory order and Campbell's dissent and I am missing the point that some are bringing up about the USADA attempting to declare AAF's for the other stage test results. I read the order to say that the USADA or WADA may not bring additional doping charges against Floyd Landis based on the testing of the additional stage TDF "B"samples. It's pretty black and white. They are just using the additional stage test results to add to the pile of evidence and to assess the truthfulness of Landis' claims prior to that testing about his being "clean" for all the other stages of the 2006 Tour de France.
Oh, and the arbitration panel allowed the testing of the additional TDF "B" urine samples to assess the testing procedures of the Lab so they could further investigate the Landis claims of Lab ineptitude.
Anon - 8:38
Campbell's dissent was clear. He believed the B's should not be tested because no AAF could occur. The WADA code is explicit on what is needed for an AAF. Both A and B need to be positive. He got the lab tech to admit she declared it an AAF, which according to code was not allowable because the A sample was declared clean.
My guess is that Campbell is helping lay the groundwork for taking this case to federal court.
Cal
Cal,
Doesn't sound like an impartial arbitrator to me if he's doing as you say.
Neither Campbell nor McLaren are "impartial". The only neutral is Brunet.The other two could camp out with either sideif they want to. The system stinks.
Idiot and Cal,
A Lab technician does not declare an AAF. A Lab technician determines a numerical result. Someone else, at WADA, compares the result to WADA code and determines whether or not to deem it adverse or not.
Campbell's questioning about whether or not the Lab tech thought it was adverse or not is irrelevant.
What part don't you understand?
An AAF means that there was a violation of WADA code and charges will be brought. The Landis test results for other TDF stage "B" samples will not be used to bring additional charges against Landis. The arbitration panel allowed the results into the hearing. Period. Campbell is a member of that panel.
Bill Hue said: "Neither Campbell nor McLaren are "impartial". The only neutral is Brunet.The other two could camp out with either sideif they want to. The system stinks."
Do you think Campbell is really on Floyd's side, or is he just the only one of the arbiters who's concerned about fairness and following the rules? I think that Brunet and McClaren are so biased toward the ADAs and so disinterested in creating a fair process that it may create an illusion that Campbell is biased in the opposite direction.
~ Cub
Post a Comment