Saturday Mailbox

Good morning.

The "post your comments" section of this topic is where you can post any questions you have.

By and large, that is the only way we can locate them to answer.

TBV and Bill

Didn't Landis sucessfully move to strike the non-peer reviewed UCLA study and
this study from Young's opening statements? I seem to remember the UCLA study
was tossed and they were going to rule on this study and testimony right before
he speaks.Do I have this right? The Germany study was done in early 2007,
according to Young.I remember Campbell asking if it was before or after February
23 that USADA received it. I guess Campbell wanted to know if USADA was arguing
the single metobolite theory before they even knew of the studies existence. How
can they argue a standard using future studies as support?Again, how much do I
have correct here?

You are correct. the evidence was excluded brcause the study had not been peer reviewed and the study was not completed. USADA's argument on that point has been lost.

Did anyone else come away from Dr. Goldberger's testimony with the conclusion
that the LNDD documentation is not up to the WADA/ISL standards? The three ions needed versus the one ion analyzed in many of the graphs?

Maybe. That is the issue, isn't it. It depends on whether the Panel agrees with Ayotte (perhaps Catlin today) or Goldberger.

Do you expect Landis will testify in this morning's session, or will it be
after lunch (Calif time)?

This afternoon. We are still not in morning session and he is last on the list.

When you say "landis 10:00 / usada 15.1" does that mean time they've got
remaining?

Yes, that is their total time remaining to be used today, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. They will take evidence through Wednesday and then adjourn. At a time and place to be agreed upon and determined they will present closing argument. By Order, they will each have 1 hour to close.

Would you have time to comment before you leave on the WADA scientist
testimony. It seems that they all love each other and that all the WADA labs are
just perfect. The WADA scientists are not allowed to testify against another
WADA lab? Or someuch?

None of the WADA scientists criticize each other and it is disconcerning that the Rome WADA lab head is the Panel's "Independent Expert". The WADA Code does not allow them to testify "on behalf of an athlete"

Bill, do you judge criminal trials or other cases where lab work plays an
important part? If so, what's your opinion of the quality of LNDD's work
compared to what you are used to seeing?

Hey Cub, we see forentsic and medical lab work all thee time. the difference i see is that those labs do not see themselves as infallible.