Hearing - Witness Preview
Comments by TAF sends us some information about some of the proffered witnesses...
On the witness list at Pressbox, Merckx is listed as "World-class cyclist and expert in cycling tactics".
So I would guess he's there to testify that Floyd's win was due to tactics, and not a "superhuman" effort.
On to others. John Amory, is on the list as a "medical doctor and professor" is actually an endocrinologist with a focus on testosterone.
Dan Garrett is probably a character reference.
Simon Davis is probably there to answer questions specific to the equipment.
Wolfram Meier-Augenstein is an expert in IRMS and seems in particular to be an expert on sources of errors.
On the other side of the fence, we have Rodrigo Aguilera, who's done a lot of work in developing the IRMS test for testosterone.
Together with Don Catlin (also on the witness list) they wrote one of the more important papers on the subject ("Performance characteristics...") however it's one of the studies where there were values among the controls that would be false positives. Also, they got very clear positives in that study, nothing like what Floyd had.
There's also Wilhelm Schanzer. He's also done quite a bit of research into IRMS and the T test. He was one of the scientists on the unpublished WADA study on diet. USADA has already asked the first scientist if anything in diet could affect the IRMS test, perhaps they want to elaborate on this in preparation for any such defense from Landis (who shows no signs whatsoever of mounting that defense).
- TAF
3 comments:
It seems to me that for every one of these experts who are related to WADA, Suh/Jacobs ought to ask "If you thought the results of these tests were problematic, would you feel free to testify for the other side?" These are not independent experts of any kind. If any WADA employee had doubts we wouldn't even know, they aren't allowed to testify.
You should also include the preview of Floyd's witnesses that I wrote, three or four comments earlier than these, in that same posting (the one where I realized Merckx' role, not the one where I was confused about his role :-)
tom
Swim,
Going a step further - the panel's "independent expert" is a WADA lab head. From a Monday posting and exchange with Bill Hue it seems to be the case that the "independent expert" is sitting with the panel and may well be participating in an ongoing basis. I have no doubt that the panel will use him as a resource in their assessment of the relative cases when they go into deliberations. There is no other reason to have him on site and on the bench. How would you like to have someone with a vested interest in the tests and procedures being "infallible" whispering in the ears of the judges?
Maybe I am wrong, but the history of this case tells me otherwise.
pcrosby
Post a Comment