What is Brenna's Reputation worth?
Dr. Brenna is announced as a rebuttal witness. I wondered driving in if he will be really be called.
Should he appear, we know what USADA wants him to say -- yes, those peaks really are identified because in my opinion that is what they are; the problems mentioned by Goldberger, Herr Doktor Professor Wolgang Meier-Augenstein and Davis don't affect the result; there are no ISL violations: "Still looks good to me!"
We can also predict some probing questions during a cross examination, such as "why didn't you notice or mention the mismatched retention times in your review of the documents and testimony here?"
I find myself wondering how far against the wall Brenna is willing to put his reputation for this case, in public testimony.
8 comments:
I wonder if Landis's attorneys will ask him about the WADA "Omerta". ;-) If they do, it would need to be a cagily worded question so that he can't just deny it.
Brenna has put himself into a pretty tough corner... either kill the cash cow or openly disagree with some pretty big guns in his field (with his own reputation on the line). I'm sure he's hoping they run out time....
this guy is going to be sacrafical lamb who is getting thrown to the wolves...at this point if Brenna gets on the stand, he is going to get ripped in cross...we've all taken one for the team, but this guy will be done in the scientific world...
USADA has no shame; and regardless of how much mud the monkey can sling...
court of public opinion can't argue with the science, assuming they take the time to read for themselves...
WADA Annex SOP:
Step 1: Take off shoe.
Step 2: Take off men's hosiery.
Step 3: Open mouth widely as to not to obstruct.
Step 4: Insert foot.
Step 5: Note date and time in CoC.
Step 6: Procedure complete.
Scientist have egos too. I'm not sure he could stand to look like a doofus, with what we heard. Do you think he'd just say WADA makes him say this stuff and blow open the whole case? Yes, his reputation is on the line, and is he going to fall a sword for WADA???? I guess it depends on how much he is willing to sell out his reputation for money!!
Ah ye$, $ometime today, perhap$, we'll $ee the 1.3 Million Dollar Man.
Welcome back to the circu$, $ir!Your magic act $hould be quite the $how, making all the problem$ go away. Watch the di$appearing monkey! Poof! What I$L violation$?
Thi$ Dr. Brenna, who would be "very concerned" if his lab had the type$ of di$crepencie$ found in the re-analy$i$, will put on a good $how. He who thought the lab work wa$ "very good" to "excellent" depending on the particular area.
It $hould be noted that Dr. Brenna clo$e$ his eye$ when he $peak$, a$ if trying to remember ju$t what U$ADA ha$ told him to $say.
In any event, he $erve$ a $pecific purpo$e. He will $how u$ the path to being a "made-guy" ready to invoke the WADA Omerta when called upon.
Actually the more he sells his soul the easier Landis' closing. The combination of untrained/unqualified operators making so many unrepeatable manual adjustments on outdated machinery that is not regularly maintained in a lab with a 300% greater rate of identifications, coupled with the presentation of a sensational story of stupidity that has nothing to do with the merits (LeMond's testimony) while not allowing that testimony to be examined for it's motivations already paints a pretty clear picture that USADA's case has become purely an attempt to protect themselves. The further Brenna goes on rebuttal to justify what we have seen over the past several days, the less credible the entire USADA case becomes. Closing begins with a recitation of what the defense case has given, and then a claim that no matter what it would not be enough for WADA to admit any deficiency. The further Brenna goes out for this lab, the further the entire WADA process is called into question. Not a good choice for the USADA or Brenna. Simply repeating "that error is not significant" should carry little to no weight after 30 times.
This may be a little off the topic, but relevant. I doubt that the WADA lab people or heads travel around and observe the other labs in action. They should know hwat their own labs do and their testimony indicated that there were variations. (Montreal: the content of the packet and quality of graphs; UCLA: 3 ions vs 1 and different internal standard for a positive). All the labs were "accredited" by someone to do these tests which should be worth something. Addtionally, there is some testimony of periodic testing of prepared samples for quality control. (Wonder what those records show?) Given that I can understand that the heads of WADA labs would start with the assumption that the tests were being done correctly even if the documentation packets generated by each varied.
Folks are correct. Brenna's scientific intergrity is going to be heavily tested in USADA/WADA's attempt to overcome the impact of Landis' experts.
In so many ways this comes down to "who watches the watchers?" Remember a few (?) years ago when the FBI lab almost lost its accredidation? This system needs an overhaul from the ground up.
pcrosby
Post a Comment