Monday, May 14, 2007

Hue - Second Guessing

On cross examination of Brenna, Suh establishes that Brenna sought and received a grant from USADA. The total grant was over 1.3 million dollars over 3 years. Brenna's lab is not WADA accredited. He has never testified before and is still receiving his USADA grant.

This is a very effective cross examination issue when the public or a jury is a fact finder but I'm not sure whether this will play well to the Panel.

Suh shows a document to Brenna but he can't comment on it because it is in French. The entire evidence pack is of course, in French. That is an additional barrier to the truth because although this is a US licenced rider being tried by the US ADA, in the US, virtually all the initial documentation is in a foreign language. That was very effective without over playing it.

Suh crosses on a control the instrument didn't pick up. When the doctor hedges, Suh hones in. Nice lawyering. Suh gets involved in technical issues with his overhead and Brunet tells him he "can play with it tonight". Following the earlier "nuts" comment, whether intentional or unintentional, the innuendo may break the ice but I can't imagine any tribunal engaging in double entendre more than once and probably never on purpose because that is always risky buisiness.

Suh has now gone through 4 other additional controls outside of the measurement of error. Brenna says some were slightly outside the measurement of error but it doesn't alter his opinion about the lab's good quality control. Suh points out one test where the 5-alpha is missing but Brenna says they call that a positive control so it is a positive control so the fact that one control was missing makes no difference. Linearity is covered. The doctor tests his machine weekly over the full range but the doctor also says it isn't something he worries too much about. so, although his lab does it, it isn't really necessary. He says because linearity is just another level of quality control, if it isn't done right or if it isn't effectively performed, then there is no problem with over-all quality control because it is extra and not a required component. Apparantly in science precision and accuracy are not the same and that is the hair being split.

They will continue with the witness tomorrow.


Thomas A. Fine said...

I saw something in one of the arbitrators' documents that said that this is a trial in English, and all documents submitted in foreing languages must be accompanied by a translation.

So did that just get thrown out of the window?


Anonymous said...

From the "Order of Procedure No. 1" document:

The language of this arbitration is English. Documents submitted in any other language
than English shall be accompanied by a translation. If such documents are not
accompanied by an English translation, the Panel may decline to consider them. Where
applicable, an interpreter may be used at the hearing to translate the testimony of parties
or witnesses. The party requiring an interpreter shall bear the resulting costs.