Frelat just admitted she knew she was testing Landis' "B" samples in August of last year.
This will test the WADA Code requirements that testing be "blind" although there WERE Landis observers there. At the break, we will check out the WADA Code to see whether this is significant, although the information certainly is.
Suh immediately moved on to questioning on April "B" sample re-tests .
Commenter pommi got his exactly correct and it took us some rereading of TBV's verbatim transcription prior to the morning break to confirm.
Thus, this post has been edited.
In reading the International Standards, there may be a violation, here. However, the violation, if any, pertains to confidentiality for sure and to science, maybe. If there is a violation,USADA has to show that it didn't "cause" the adverse analytical finding. So, if the violation breached confidentiality, did that "cause" the adverse analytical? Not likely.
If the testing was to be blind and the WADA code allows the athlete or his representative to be present, how "blind" can it be? But, if USADA can show that knowing Landis' identity did not "cause" the adverse anlytical finding then he will be "convicted". The fact that "B" testing wasn't blind may be offensive to some, but the Code allows that rule violation, unless it "causes" the adverse analytical finding.
An anonymous contributor echos TBV's concern about how lack of "blindness" may have "caused" the adverse analytical finding. He/she says;
"Moreover, as I think Landis' team is trying to establish, it certainly raises the specter that knowing the identity of a sample (especially in a case as pivotal as this)'could' give rise to curious manual calculations in order to validate the results from earlier tests."
We think the observation is spot on, so we include it, herein.