Saturday, May 19, 2007

Hue - Landis Testimony

It looks like FL will be the first witness this afternoon. I have secured a place in the hearing room , but the rest of the "TBV" crew must stay in the Press room. I appreciate the honor.

Don Catlin is first!!! Wow, who knew? We are elbow to elbow in here but not all the seats are taken. All the still photographers have left, nothing to see here, yet, I guess.


Check out TBV's summaries for content and I'll chime in on the legal stuff.

Young is doing direct. He is terrific!

WADA positivity criteria is met by the Landis LNDD results but Catlin's lab wrote a letter to USADA in the past defining its (UCLA WADA lab's) criteria and under the criteria in that letter, positivity would not exist. He would write a letter to USADA declaring a "positive" and also noting the previous letter sent on the positivity criteria issue. Nonetheless, he would be comfortable with testifying as to the "positive" status under the WADA code, under these (Landis') circumstances.

Catlin confirms scientically what Papp testified to by anectdote, that a low dose of testosterone can aid recovery. While not earth shattering (because it is well known), this form of evidence actually establishes the fact with the certainty of expert testimony. There was no reason to call Papp for the concept if USADA had Catlin but Papp pleased the USADA "base". Catlin's testimony will please the Panel.

Suh crosses. His cross lacks some effectiveness because Dr Catlin seems to be a very nice and honest man. So, far, of the USADA witnesses, he is the most impressive and gives a very good hearing room impression. He calls the LNDD work "excellent" and Suh, not Young elicited that opinion. Ouch!

Ok, I've been answering reader's questions as Suh continues. He is going through a series of letters Catlin sent declaring indeterminate (the same level Landis has had declared as positives here) with the reservation and reference to the 2001 letter rather than declaring posives as he had testified he would do. Very effective.

The issue of sloping peaks on chromotography is explored and Catlin seems guarded and uncomfortable now. He sees one and gives it a "C" and then there is some back and forth, with both Suh and Catlin showing humor and the veil Catlin had pulled before, is lifted. Maybe a lost opportunity? We'll see.

No, what Suh pulled off is to get the witness loose and willing to give the chromotography he just saw a C- , compared to the one he just was shown, a "true" C. Suh talks to him about the shoulder of a peak (coallusion) but it wouldn't be invalidated in Catlin's opinion. Suh says, yes, but only if the noise could be removed. Catlin doesn't know the instrument or software and he admires the French lab's ability to both tests GCMS and IRMS, that they can't do at UCLA. At UCLA, they don't delete data like Mongongu did.

We are back. the lawyers here but not the Panel, yet.

Suh started slowly, found his footing and scored some cross examination points consistantly. Barnett wasres more time on an authentication issue concerning a USADA document. the Panel shuts him down and they move on. Catlin likes the chromatogram on this document and the argument exceeded the presentation by 4 times. plus a twenty minute break.

Suh scores again by examining on the Zack Lund case. Catlin testified before CAS on behalf of USADA but said the hair loss product wasn't a masking agent but WADA was upset and concerned with his testimony. WADA said "this isn't getting to the truth", as though Catlin's testimony wasn't going to do that or didn't do that.


Young redirects.

Leads him through another letter. It is cycling May 28, 2006. It is out of competition and the sample was tested for masking agents, diuretics, HCG and steroids. The IRMS was reported, the GCMS was reported and it was left to USADA to declare whether it was positive. USADA declared it positive and handed out an 8 year suspension by acceptance. Young implies this was the same sample Jacobs redacted and caused the big delay at the break. A combination of the Young Ruse plus Young Gambit, our first double!!!

He continues, establishing Catlin believes the Landis case is a positive case.

Campbell questions. He asks about the survey/study Catlin is doing about supression of natural testosterone by the synthetic ones. He hopes to establish new tests to detect the new designer steroids by identifying natural testosterone supression or drugs used to raise those levels to "normal".

Catlin can't say the longitudinal study shows a natural testosterone supression. Cambell does look like he's seeking truth, whether that truth disfavors Landis or not. That is refreshing.

Young jumps on it and establishes people use testosterone because it is easy to use and avoid sanction


Anonymous said...

Looking for to cross about the conflicting standards of positive.

Ken ( said...

Catlin confirms scientically what Papp testified to by anectdote, that a low dose of testosterone can aid recovery. While not earth shattering (because it is well known), this form of evidence actually establishes the fact with the certainty of expert testimony.

Umm... no, Catlin only confirmed his/her own professional opinion as a scientist. Here is a peer reviewed double blind study that found no evidence of this claim: "Effect of multiple oral doses of androgenic anabolic steroids on endurance performance and serum indices of physical stress in healthy male subjects."

Link thanks to Rant.

Anonymous said...

Unbelievable! The labs don't dare step out of line. They can't use results to help an athlete. WADA (What A Den A thieves?)

Laura Challoner, DVM said...

Ken, you have to leave the cross to Suh. If he crosses on what you are talking about, we'll report it.
I can't argue with what I'm hearing and seeing. I'm not rooting for one side or the other. I'm just reporting what I'm hearing. He has testified as a professional, to his opinion.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ken ( said...

I understand Bill and you have been doing a fantastic job. I greatly appreciate it as I can't be there in person.

I was just observing the difference between scientific confirmation and professional opinion as a scientist, which is incredibly important in this instance (even if we can only debate it in a series of blog replies). I'm hoping that Suh and Landis' team did their homework on this.

Laura Challoner, DVM said...

Thanks, good observations.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ken ( said...

not seeing any update on TBV since 'ouch!'

technical problem?

Bill replied to my comments since then. I bet their fingers are typing just as fast as they can. I can not imagine trying to report as quickly as they have been doing. Bill and TBV deserve some kind of prize that includes a manicure.

Anonymous said...

Suh is amazing! He's getting the witness to laugh while he's inserting the dagger.

Anonymous said...

This whole escapade is mind-numbing when you digest all of this testimony, hear blatant overt contradictions from each and every USADA's witness, and take it all in with the empty feeling knowing that it's going to end up a 2-1 victory for USADA.

I have yet to see a single USADA witness not blatantly contradict him or herself.

"What color is that banana, sir?"


"You know, the blue banana, right there on the table."

"Why, it's blue, of course. Naturally, in my own lab, we'd report it as yellow--and I'd even write you a little note to that effect--but for today's festivities, it's the prettiest shade of blue."

"Of course it is."

"Of course."

"I love you."

"I love you, too."

Laura Challoner, DVM said...


Anonymous said...

Go Suh Go! Wow. He agrees that UCLA never overwrites data. The cumulative effect of all this poor USADA testamony has got to be hitting home, even in this fixed game.
I still can't believe the labs are prohibited from supplying any information that would actually assist an athlete. They are actually required to withhold any information. Congress really needs to drop the hammer here. Pull funding until house is cleaned up. Talk about a war on terror; this is a war.

Anonymous said...

I just hope Bill can get over his man crush on Young when he leaves. Just kidding.

Ken ( said...

Forget the monkey dance drama, the cross examination of the "real" witnesses is way more interesting. Too bad its only the juicy "scandal" that gets the mainstream media's attention.

I'm so glad Bill and TBV have been reporting rest of the story to us. Thank you a thousand times over.

Laura Challoner, DVM said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

I was following this post thinking the coverage was here since it was the latest, no one clued me to the previous post, sorry for inferring that the coverage was lax.

strbuk said...

Bill, I *do* love you, you should know that. I have a question, is Landis getting his money's worth with his team of lawyers? Thanks, I will MISS you !!


Laura Challoner, DVM said...

his lawyers are pros and thanks for the love!

Anonymous said...

Regarding getting his money's worth for his lawyers, he's certainly getting it since it seems like he's gotten other people to pay for most of it for him through the FFF.