Monday, May 14, 2007

Opening statements

Suh interrupts start of opening statements. He wants the panel to address the motion in limine about evidence to strike, to preclude reference in opening statements to evidence that might not be admitted.

Brunet is willing to let them talk about it in the opening statement; Campbell advises objection should it show up.

Opening statements are not admission of evidence; Suh is not to object during the uninterrupted USADA opening statement. Suh wants to be able to object after the opening statement.

USADA Opening Statement
Richard Young

9:43, USADA starts. His 5a-diol and 5p-diol at -6 delta. Does this meet criteria? Are they reliable?


We are not seeing the powerpoint he's showing, so details are missing.

Refer to WADA criteria -- don't want to spend time arguing 3 or 4, because this difference is 6 delta units. Now, into the "metabolite(s)" language. Only one is needed. USADA will call Ayotte, and she will say only one is needed; also Cedric Shackleton, he'll say there is no natural explanation for delta of 6, supported by recent studies, and that one subject after injection in a UCLA study had a similar pattern as Landis' sample. A Cologne study shows something similar using gel.

Cornell scientist will testify LNDD is reliable, as will Montrel, Cologne, and UCLA. Referring to controls from testing. They did a bunch of calibrations along with the actual tests. Claims this shows the "rifle is shooting a tight group"

Claims to show a comparison with a reference at another laboratory within 3%; claims to show blank urines are correct.

As well as that, there is corroboration in EDF reprocessing, for the "outdated software". "He bet the house on that argument" Claim he lost that bet. The A and B samples were "more positive" using the new software than the original software. Claim 8 for 8 more positive.

Dr. Botre said the manual integration improves the quality of the results.

Corroboration by T/E ratio. 11:1 is "way outside the range of normal." Longitudinal doesn't show naturally raised levels. Indication baseline was less than 2.

Ignore anything about plausibility; it's strict liability, we don't have to prove utility. But we hear from UCI Joe Papp will say how and why he used testosterone in his cycling career.

Final corroboration-- IRMS detects even when T/E.

Landis Opening Statement
Maurice Suh

Suh does his opening statement.

We had a problem, and butchered the beginning of our running summary, so some of this is by memory. Too bad -- the original version was probably better.

This case is a disaster, with multiple causes. The conclusions from the data is wrong, there is no positive test. USADA has refused discovery, destroyed evidence and hampered his ability to raise funds and petition congress. The case began prejudiced, and continues, starting from WADA Chairman Mr. Pound's utterances that are factually incorrect, and compounded by things such as the "violating virgins" comnment that is deeply offensive to Mr. Landis and his wife.

He walks through the case requirements and burden turns, and emphasizes USADA's obligation to prove that ISL violations didn't affect the results. He argues that the "comfortable satisfaction" criteria should approach "reasonable doubt" given the importance of the event and the charge, and says there is justification for that in the code.

He says they are going to concentrate on the science to show there is no positive. They are not going to address whether the results are caused by a natural part of his metabolism, because there is nothing to answer.

In arguing against the tests, they are going to present eight main arguments, of which they will emphasise three here.

1. Poor Chromatography; Bedrock principle is that you need good chromatograms. Clean and clear peaks with good separation, no overlap, clear resolved baseline. Without a good chromatogram, you are not getting good results. We'll show the bad chromatograms, and that they are an ISL violation.

We're going to look at a lot of chromatograms. USADA didndnt

S17 baseline slopes baseline, poor peak separation.

S11. Downward sloping baseline, poor peak separation.

T/E chromatogram -- overlapping shoulder in both A and B.

2. Manual processing of data

When manual peak identification is done, results can be skewed.

We were told background was automatic; we just learned it is manual. USADA told us it was automatic.
Not documented as required by ISL. Whole chart, not shown, demonstrates that they did manual subtraction 20 times to get the result they wanted. Background changes from -2 to -0.3

3. Selected Ion Monitor.

To identify testosterone, you must look for 3 ions, and ISL requires it. What did LNDD do? Ion 432.40, is just one. UCLA example shows three distinct ion peaks. LNDD packs don't show any of this.

We challenge during the course that the experts prove the chromatograms are good, that the background subtraction and that the process was correct.

We're not trying to get off on a technicality. We're going to show that all these errors cause bad results.

Why have an ISL if you can violate it left and right?

This lab reports AAFs three times more than any other lab. Could that be related to their ISL violations?

WADA's motto is to play fair. Who watches the watchers? False statements, destruction of evidence, chilling requests.

USADA brags they always win, and they are always right.

Make them carry their burden. If you do, you will find Mr. Landis committed no doping offense.