Here's the big (426M) document dump many have been waiting for, especially Mr. Idiot. We have not looked at these deeply, and will update and index as we and others find things of interest. We'll also add missing bits when we find them.
The archive is here, and the contents (so far) are:
We have uploaded more CAS hearing material to the archive. This includes the post-hearing briefs and the transcript. We'll add a searchable transcript when we remember.
Our DSL connection is still painfully unreliable; the exhibits are coming, but may not be fast to arrive.
Reading the award, we make the following quick observations.
First, it is annoying that CAS publishes them in a PDF format that precludes text search. A kind reader has produced a searchable version that may be of use to many people. We'll mirror it when possible.
259. There is a clear distinction between administrative deficiencies, bad laboratory practice, procedural error, or other honest inadequacy on the one hand and dishonesty or bad faith on the other. Some of the Appellant's expert witnesses appeared insufficiently aware of this distinction.
Landis has a hard task trying to climb this Olympus. The gods up top are trying to smite him for suggesting they are imperfect, because that is bad for business.
Q: You've been on this forever, and I can't make heads or tails. What gives?
All of our appeal specific coverage can be found here, which will identify many of the issues that will be discussed. We hope. Alternately, we have a bunch of gas-bag articles talking about legal aspects and scientific issues.
For a general rundown, we refer to Bill Hue's CAS Overview from October.
Q: Who are the parties?
Landis and USADA. Landis is being represented by Maurice Suh, and we don't know if Howard Jacobs is going to be directly involved. USADA is being represented by, we think, the same Holmes-Roberts-Owen group of Richard Young, Dan Dunn, and Matt Barnett, plus others.
Q: Is this an appeal or a new hearing?
Both. It's an appeal procedurally, but is de novo, which means the Panel can evaluate everything from scratch without being held to any findings of fact by the previous panel, and the parties are free to bring in new evidence and arguments.
In an "appeal" as most folks think about it, the parties only get to argue about mistakes in legal interpretation made by the panel of first instance, and not about the facts at all. They don't get to bring in any new evidence, or change the basic arguments made initially.
Not so limited here. If someone wants to bring in the Nazi Frogmen, or argue the blood-test results prove something, it would be allowed. If new arguments are inconsistent with those made earlier, there might be some explaining to do about why the previous claims are now inoperative, but you get to do it.
Q: Who are the arbiters?
We ran over this in November. The chair was selected by CAS, not the parties, and is David Williams QC from New Zealand. The USADA pick is David Rivkin, and the hearing will be held at his firm's offices in NYC. The Landis pick is Jan Paulsson, who was the chair of the Landaluce panel.
Q: Who is paying?
We don't know where Landis is getting his money, and this looks to be a low-budget expedition for him. Eddie Pells says that WADA is picking up most if not all of USADA's costs, and that WADA is not happy that the UCI is not chipping in.
CAS is apparently paying for the Arbs.
At the first hearing in Malibu, the Panel and facilities were paid for by the USOC, who is now out of the loop.
Bean counters or taxpayer rights advocates might wonder why USADA uses outside counsel instead of doing things in-house. USADA may be happier with the end-result compared to what might happen with in-house legal staff, but it has got to be a budget-busting practice. If USADA were less concerned about winning! then they could use less costly in-house prosecution, like a district attorney does. It's a rare prosecution (i.e., Boies in US v. Microsoft, also this.) where outside litigators are brought in by the charging side.
Q: Where is it being held?
The NY Offices of Baker Hostetler, on the 11th floor of 45 Rockefeller Plaza; [oops wrong David Rivkin!] NY Offices of Debevoise & Plimpton, 919 Third Ave, according to the CAS press release. Suh's Gibson-Dunn is at 200 Park Avenue, 11 short and 2 long blocks away. HRO doesn't have a NY office.
If USADA/HRO has been set up in the Debevoise & Plimpton offices in the run-up, one might raise an eyebrow, but it is probably reasonably expedient.
Q: What idiots scheduled it over Easter weekend in New York?
Not us! (We're not going.)
Q: Who is testifying?
Nobody is saying, publicly, yet. We expect most direct testimony to be done by declarations and/or affidavits, with cross examination during the hearing. Whether witnesses will be in NY is unclear; we expect many will be done via phone-call. Doing direct by declaration is fast, but cross-by-phone isn't.
Q: What is the scuttlebutt?
Very tight lipped. Suh is professing optimism according to Pells, but then again, he would. USADA has been following equally predictable posturing. That's why they hold the hearing.
Q: What are the changes in the case?
We don't expect too many Papp/LeMond like issues to be discussed. It'll probably be the dry science and procedure, the kind of stuff we've been discussing here. Probably also more chain of custody technicalities as well.
The main new issue is the "different columns" discovery, and how USADA will attempt to rebut it. USADA seems to face a dilemma with that one:
They can either admit the columns were different, and deal with scientific fallout; or claim they were the same columns and the documentation is "in error", but that "error" has nothing to do with the reported results.
The latter seems to say, "We can lie in the document packages and our other filings as much as we like with no consequences, as long as we claim it doesn't affect the test result. And it is too late, expensive, and otherwise impossible to find out the truth by the time these things are noticed, so we win by having lied. That's the WADA code in action. We know, we wrote it to be that way."
And,"Crikey!", USADA might be right about that, if the Panel accepts it as the way the rules should work.
Q: Where is the video feed?
Um, sorry, not this time.
With luck, we hope to eventually get the transcripts and the rulings. If Landis holds good on his "openness" pledge, we'll have plenty to catalog and archive later.
Q: Is there a confidentiality/gag order in place?
We don't know.
In a comment to "Getting around to Specificity", Mr. Idiot reaches some important understandings, and we post it for broader visibility. It's been a real slow couple of weeks, and what comments there have been are in topics lost down the page.
My basic understanding is now that LNDD's method of detecting the presence of exogenous testosterone is not "fit for purpose." This failure of the assay to be fit for purpose has come about because LNDD failed to take account of a key difference between the pre-IRMS testosterone test, and the GC/C/IRMS testosterone test.
Before IRMS (about 1997 at UCLA - I don't know exactly when LNDD got it, but certainly before 2003), testosterone was clearly a threshold substance. The T/E ratio had to cross the quantitative threshold of 6/1 (now 4/1). The key measurement was the AMOUNT of testosterone compared to the amount of epitestosterone.
In that context, TD2003IDCR makes perfect sense. In order to use GC/MS to detect exogenous testosterone you can identify and measure the amount of testosterone and epitestosterone with a GC/MS in Selected Ion Monitoring (SIM) mode. By monitoring three ions of each substance you are able to both clearly identify and quantify both T and epi-T. First you separate the substances with the GC, and then monitor the three key most abundant ions (i.e. the "diagnostic ions") of the proper GC peak with the MS.
The key thing to note here is that even if your GC separation is not perfect, or even if there is an indistinguishable perfectly co-eluting peak, leading to other substances in your GC peak, it does not invalidate your measurement. If the ratio of the three diagnostic ions is right (those are known ratios) then you know you have the right substance with no interference AT THOSE IONS. There maybe other things in that peak, but, when you are not using IRMS, it doesn't matter because you have identified and quantified your testosterone properly with the three diagnostic ions. Same for epi-T.
[MORE]
(This is not really relevant to my present topic, but as it turns out LNDD only analyzed ONE diagnostic ion in their T/E test, so the arbs ruled their process violated TD2003IDCR and that the evidence of that test was without value. If that was the only test, the case would have been dismissed.)
Now, when TD2003IRCR was approved in 2003 IRMS was still relatively new, and not all WADA labs had an IRMS machine. When TD2004IAAS became effective in August of 2004, IMRS was still officially an "add on" - that is, if the T/E confirmation test, describe roughly above, was not conclusive, then an IRMS test was recommended. Thus TD2003IDCR was written so that administration of exogenous testosterone could still be confirmed without IRMS - and, in fact, as best I can tell, that is still the situation today. That said, even WADA understands that the IRMS test is much more conclusive when done properly.
So, historically speaking, you have the situation in which GC/MS works "fine" (at least by WADA standards), and then, at different times in different labs, the IRMS test is added as an additional piece of evidence.
Now, what LNDD apparently did when they added the IRMS test to their arsenal, was to continue to do the GCMS test the same way they had before - with SIM - the way it had been perfectly effective before, and, importantly, a way it is perfectly in line with TD2003IDCR.
HOWEVER, when the IRMS test is added to the GCMS test, the GCMS test must be done a little differently. Of course, you are analyzing metabolites of testosterone, not T itself, but that is not important here. The key thing is that SIM no longer does the job you need done. For GC/C/IRMS you not only need to know that there is substance x in a given GC peak, but you also need to know that there is nothing else in addition to substance x in the peak. SIM mode does not tell you this. Only doing a full ion scan of a given peak will tell you this. That is, you have to monitor not just three diagnostic ions, but all ions present in the peak because all the ions are going to the IRMS. Remember for the T/E test, it didn't matter if other stuff was present. The SIM/three diagnostic ions told you everything you needed to know. But doing the same thing as part of the IRMS test is not good enough. It does not give you the information you need.
So, if the GCMS part of GC/C/IRMS is done in SIM mode then the whole assay is not fit for purpose, even though, for "historical" reasons, it is probably technically allowed according to TD2003IDCR.
The wise reader will ask why WADA has not yet recognized and fixed this problem. Well, I can only guess that it is because, prior to the Landis case, no lab had run the GC/C/IRMS assay in exactly this way. You see, while TD2003IDCR says that SIM mode is acceptable, it also says the "preferred method" is to use full scan mode. And if you run the assay with this full scan mode then you have the conclusive evidence you need that you have measured the right stuff in the IRMS. I imagine that other labs have either not done IRMS or have done IRMS with the GCMS part done in full scan mode. Dr. Goldberger testified at the hearing that he had seen lab documentation packages from the UCLA lab and they included the full scan data for the T/E test - and if they did it for that, they would surely do it for the GCMS part of the GC/C/IRMS test also.
So, why didn't Landis' legal team press this particular issue at the hearing - that the way LNDD does the GCMS part of the IRMS test makes the assay not fit for purpose? Well, one answer is that, as Larry said above, that is a very difficult legal argument to make given the nature of the controlling documents. Especially given that the way LNDD does it appears to be okay according to TD2003IDCR. The truth is that TD2003IDCR has inadequately accounted for the nature of the IRMS test - leaving the "loop hole" of running SIM mode open, even when doing IRMS.
Another answer as to why Landis' legal team didn't press this at the hearing is to say that "They did, sort of." This is exactly what they were trying to get at with all the arguments about good chromatography. If they could not use (the inadequate) TD2003IDCR to prove an ISL violation, they had to get at the issue another way. If they could show that there was a some degree of likelihood of other material in the peaks of interest, then that should have raised enough questions to prove an ISL violation of the "matrix interference" bullet of ISL 5.4.4.2.1. But there are two problems with that approach - ISL 5.4.4.2.1 has weak language ("should" rather than "shall"), and also that there are no cut and dried criteria for what constitutes good or bad chromatography. The arbs, who did NOT understand the critical flaw in applying TD2003IDCR to IRMS, allowed the use of SIM to stand, with mediocre chromatography, because "should" does not mean "shall."
And this is where the "threshold substance" vs. "non-threshold substance" argument comes in. The way the IRMS test works, clearly testosterone SHOULD be a threshold substance, and the stronger language included in ISL 5.4.4.2.2 should apply. But because WADA has not yet admitted the fatal flaw in applying TD2003IDCR to the IRMS test, both Landis' legal team and the arbs assume that testosterone is a non-threshold substance and the weaker language of 5.4.4.2.1 applies.
There is more to talk about with regard to what exactly could be in those peaks of interest other than what should be there, but that's obviously enough for now.
Bottom line is that LNDDs method of using the SIM mode for the GCMS part of the GC/C/IRMS test makes the assay not "fit for purpose."
Oh, I just have to add one more thing - about ISO certification. This apparent technical adherence to TD2003IDCR is why LNDD could get ISO re-certification for its IRMS test just six months before Landis' tests. ISO certification does not assure that the test really does what it is supposed to do. It only assures that the test is in line with the controlling documents. If those documents are flawed, that's not ISO's fault.
SYI
We've noted before that the WADA system appears to have no body responsible for "fitness for purpose" review of test protocols. If a dunking stool were used for determination, and it's execution were to the letter of the SOP, ISO would be OK with it.
One of the arguments lying around is that the 5bA is sufficient to anchor the identification in the Landis F3, based on the following reasoning. The mix-cal acetate has an internal standard, 11k-etio, 5bA, and andro, some of which appear in all fractions. Using the pattern matching method, we claim we can see in the Blank F3 which the IS and the 5bA are matching from the mix-cal acetate. We know the blank also has 5aA, so the peak that is in the blank that matches the peak in the Landis F3 must be 5aA, and similarly for the 5bP. Even though we don't have 5aA or 5bP in the calibration standard, we can extrapolate by transitivity through the blank.
This is shown below:
Figure 2: Claimed matches on the IS and 5bA on the mix-cal, blank and Landis F3.
Figure 3: The peak claimed to be 5aA in the blank is mapped onto the Landis F3
Figure 4: There's a little peak just past the one claimed to be 5aA in both of the samples.
Figure 5: Claimed 5bP in the blank, then mapped down to the Landis F3.
Figure 6: Peak following claimed 5bP in the blank is minute in the Landis F3Following up the revelation that LNDD used different columns on the S17 when their standard operating procedure (SOP) says they should be the same, we went looking for documentation, and got some surprising results. Here is a summary of our examination.
| Date | UCI Sample | Exhibit | SOP MS | SOP IRMS | Actual MS | Actual IRMS |
| 7/3 | 993865 | Ex 92 | LNDD 1427 | LNDD 1453 | missing | missing |
| 7/11 | 994203 | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
| 7/13 | 994277 | Ex 88 | LNDD 1045 | LNDD 1071 | missing | missing |
| 7/14 | 994276 | Ex 90 | LNDD 1236 | LNDD 1262 | missing | missing |
| 7/18 | 994075 | Ex 86 | LNDD 853 | LNDD 879 | missing | missing |
| 7/20 | 995474A | USADA LDP | missing | USADA 153 | USADA 124 | missing |
| 7/20 | 995474B | USADA LDP | missing | USADA 329 | USADA 303 | missing |
| 7/22 | 994080 | Ex 87 | LNDD 951 | LNDD 977 | missing | missing |
| 7/23 | 994171 | Ex 84 | LNDD 664 | LNDD 690 | missing | missing |
| Aguilera | NL1 | Ex 89 | LNDD 1142 | LNDD 1168 | missing | missing |
| Aguilera | NL2 | Ex 85 | LNDD 758 | LNDD 784 | missing | missing |
| Aguilera | NL3 | Ex 93 | LNDD 1521 | LNDD 1547 | missing | missing |
In Different Columns yesterday, we passed on the breaking news that LNDD did not use the same GC column type on the Mass Spec that they used on the IRMS on every test done in the Landis case. They used an Agilent 19091s-433 on the MS, and a DB-17 on the IRMS. We'll call the one used for the MS the '433 from here on out.
Comments since have wondered whether this
LNDD 644: DB-17 in the SOP for the GCMS in MAN-52
'433 Example from Agilent
DB-17 example from Agilent; reverse order of the a'ene's.| HP-5ms '433 | DB-17ms | |
| (%-Phenyl)-methylpolysiloxane | 5% | 50% virtual |
| Polarity | Non-polar | Mid-polar |
| Acenaphthalene vs. acenapthene | Elutes before | Elutes after |
| DB-17 | 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-21-22-23-24-25-26-27-28-29-30-31-32-33-34 |
| DB-5 | 1-2-3-13-5-6-7-20-10-11-8-14-9-16-17-4-12-18-19-21-25-23-22-24-15-27-26-29-28-30-31-32-33-34 |
In comments, Mr. Idiot has noticed something that was in plain sight all along, if anyone had noticed.
The Majority wrote, in the key seven paragraphs, at paragraph 188:
The GC column is, of course, the same in both instruments.
USADA 124: Using an Agilent 19091s-433 for the GC/MS.
USADA 153: Using a DB-17 (as did Shackleton) for the GC/C/IRMS
USADA 303: Using an Agilent 19091s-433 for the GC/MS.
[T]his all comes from Arnie Baker through email. I do have explicit permission to make it public. The down and dirty version of it is this - most of it is right there in the original LDP:
USADA 0124 says that the column used in the GCMS was an "Agilent 19091s-433." If you dig in the Agilent website, it is clear that an Agilent 19091s-433 is an "HP-5ms" column.
USADA 0153 says that the column used in the GC/C/IRMS was a "DB-17ms." Again at the Agilent website you can find the DB-17ms and learn that it is a different column with different characteristics than the HP-5ms.
Just as one example, the HP-5ms is "non-polar," and the DB-17ms is "mid-polar."
Baker has shown that the LNDD SOP required that the DB-17ms be used for both GC/MS and GC/C/IRMS, but for some (undocumented) reason they used the HP-5ms for the GC/MS. The evidence of that is a little more complicated, so I'll wait on explaining it.
The information Baker has given me also shows specific examples of how substances elute at different times and in different orders on these two columns, and even has an example of a steroid doing so (although not specifically 5aA or 5bA). That's part of the stuff that is graphics heavy and TbV will have to do something with it.
Obviously one of the first things you learn about the connection between GC/MS and GC/C/IRMS is that the chromatographic conditions have to be the same. Now we realize that not only were the temperature conditions different, the columns were different too.
Dr Brenna is an expert in the field of IRMS and has had many papers published in this area. Some have been referenced in Dr Meier-Augenstein's own papers. However, some unusual anomalies appeared during the course of the hearing. Anomalies in the form of differences of opinion between Brenna and Meier-Augenstein over the answer to relatively straightforward questions (the effect on o/oo values for overlapping peaks).
[MORE]
This naturally leads one down the path of looking for other anomalies. After all, their difference of opinion over the effect of overlapping peaks is one which forces an observer to believe either one person or the other. They cannot both be correct. Their opinions represent the compliment of each other.
Brenna testified that during IRMS processing of the B samples, the process was automatic and that the only intervention by the technicians was for what he referred to as "quality control" purposes. Clearly, the question had been asked to determine whether the results could have been influenced by the technicians (no doubt in light of the fact that they knew which were Floyd's samples and which were the blanks). Brenna testified that the process had been automatic, not manual. Thus implying that the they could not have influenced the results. That effectively removed any question of bias during this process and, in the eyes of the arbitration panel, validated all of those results.
Moving to page 169 of the official transcript, Brenna describes the quality control actions carried out by the technicians, as observed by himself during the official testing of all of Landis' B samples. His testimony describes how the LNDD technicians, following their internal SOP, determine for themselves where the peak of interest is deemed to start and end. This is done by observing the 45/44 ratio plot and the value of the background o/oo at the start of the peak (more on this later). The first observation one would make at this point is that, clearly, selection of the integration limits are not done automatically. So which aspect of this process was automatic ?. Defining where the peak integration begins and ends also defines the background removal (everything below a straight line fit between the intersection of the integration limits and the peak). So in defining the integration limits, they are defining what is to be considered background. So which aspect of this process was automatic ?. All of the decisions which influence the computed o/oo value of the peak of interest have been taken by the lab technician. The only thing they didn't do was the number crunching necessary to evaluate their decisions. We'll leave this as an open question. Was this an automatic process ?. Brenna testified that it was.
The SOP for determining the peak start and stop times is described in detail in Brenna's testimony. The o/oo value of the background is determined from the 45/44 ratio plot at the start of the peak. The 45/44 plot is then scanned to determine where the same 45/44 value reoccurs at what appears to be the end of the peak. This is then deemed to be the end of the integration interval. A sanity check is performed by checking the defined interval on th 44 plot and any gross errors will be observed there. However, the "integration for Idiots" series highlighted that gross errors are not required to skew the results.
The presence of interference between peaks distorts the true 45/44 ratio plot for a peak. This can lead to shifts in when the 45/44 plot appears to return to the baseline. So, by following the LNDD SOP (in the presence of the sort of interference between peaks evident in Floyd's F3 plots), inaccurate results become more than just theorhetical possibilities. They become hard to avoid realities.
The most obvious question was how unbiased was Brenna's testimony ?
The same emailer who looked at chromatograms with us a few weeks ago has looked at the peak identification question, and finds himself unsatisfied with LNDD's eyeballs.
UPDATE: Retracted due to error. The author concludes:
Yes, nevermind. I thought I had found the simple, but overlooked. It is time for me to shut up and listen.
'424 matching peaks 10 and 11
'424 matching peaks 11 and 12
'428 matching peak 18 and 19
'428 matching peak 19 and 20
LNDD 707
LNDD 720
LNDD 721
LNDD 705In a comment, the estimable Mr. Idiot writes the following, and we cede the floor to this discussion:
In simplest terms, TbV's and Ali's work has shown that there is some possibility that something, or somethings, other than the right things, have found their way into the peaks of interest. This post is about what that could be.
Exhibit 106 of Floyd's recent document dump gave us some information we were long interested in - the exact substance injected into Floyd's hip on July 8, 2006 (and May 5, 2006 by the way). It was two glucocorticoids called dexamethasone (hereafter dexa') and methylprednisolone (hereafter methyl'). Glucocorticoids (a.k.a. corticosteroids) are a class of non-sex hormone related steroids, but they are still chemically very similar to testosterone.
[MORE]
Both of these substances are banned by WADA, but were covered by a Therapeutic Use Exemption for Floyd. They are both only exogenous. Unlike testosterone your body doesn't make any of this stuff.
Like testosterone, dexa' and methyl' both are metabolized by your body and broken down into other compounds. When you have it injected "intra-articularly" (into a joint) these metabolites can come out in your urine for a long time (weeks at least).
Dexa' comes out in your urine partly intact, and also as four different metabolites. Methyl' comes out partly as itself, and also as sixteen different metabolites.
So, the obvious question is, "Did any of these metabolites co-elute to any degree with the 5aA (or 5bA)?" In other words, “Do any of these metabolites show up as the little peaks, and shoulders, and possible hidden elutes in our peaks of interest?” And if you are an astute Floyd junkie, you will also wonder "If any of these metabolites did co-elute, could that have lead to a strongly negative CIR?" (although as we have seen, the negativity could be increased by a partial co-elute even if the substance was not highly negative, depending on the starts and stops of integration).
So, “Did any of these metabolites co-elute to any degree with 5aA (or 5bA)?” The answer is “maybe.”
Unfortunately, the only way to tell for sure is to have the complete mass spectra data of the relevant peaks. That information is gone.
So, what are we left with? Well, what we would like to have is some evidence that at least one of those 20 metabolites has a habit of eluting at least somewhere near the metabolites of testosterone. The problem is that when something elutes in a GC/MS is not really predictable. In different chromatographic conditions, stuff elutes at different times. And it is particularly hard to predict the retention time when dealing with glucocorticoids like dexa’ and methyl’, because they are highly temperature sensitive, so small changes in the conditions will strongly affect the elution time.
I have not found a single chromatogram available on the internet that has dexa’ or methyl’ along with testosterone (or their metabolites) shown on the same chromatogram.
A further complication is that testing for glucocorticoids is usually done with liquid chromatography / mass spectrometry (LC/MS), rather than GC/MS. This is for several reasons. First GC/MS (at least the way LNDD does it) involves certain steps to prepare the samples to be analyzed. One of the steps is acylation. I don’t get the details of the chemistry, but the effect is if the compound has any hydroxyl (Oxygen and Hydrogen together) groups, it ends up lowering the CIR of the compound. Many of the methyl’ metabolites have numerous hydroxyl groups, so the resulting compound could have seriously negative CIRs.
Another reason LC/MS is used is that glucocorticoids are hard to turn into gases (they have low volatility) and they are very temperature sensitive, making consistent results in GC/MS difficult to achieve. That superiority of LC/MS for analyzing glucocorticoids may be why they aren’t normally shown on the same chromatogram.
So, the summary of all that is that it does not really seem possible to show ahead of time whether these two compounds, dexa’ and methyl’, or and their 20 metabolites, would elute with 5aA or anything else. Too much depends on the particular circumstances of the particular set-up of the particular GC/MS machine using a particular process.
Now, most of you reading this remember the great discussion between Larry and m about whether the demands of TD2003IDCR were met. The most generous take on all that is that LNDD did met TD2003IDCR using a “relaxed relative retention time” standard. The 1% standard stated in the document would need to be relaxed to about 6%.
What that means is that any of these dexa’ and methyl’ metabolites that were within 6% of the peak of interest in the GC/MS have to be considered as possible co-elutes in the IRMS (there may be even more movement of substances than that between the GC/MS and the IRMS, but that’s a conservative, but big enough window).
Remember we are talking two main compounds and 20 metabolites. It seems reasonable to conclude that one or more of them fall within 6% of the 5aA peak in the GC/MS. Looking at the chromatogram, there are some possibilities there. Any one of those could have negatively skewed the CIR in the IRMS.
Of course, the complete mass spectra data could have made all of this moot, because it could have shown the purity of the peaks in the GC/MS and identified everything around it. So we would have known there were possible problems. But, alas, that information was erased.
In the end, this is all about specificity, the way LNDD assures the purity of its peaks. In short, they don't, because they don't have the mass spec data.
And with dexamethasone and methylprednisolone we have compounds that could have caused contamination / interference, and there seems to be no way to show they didn't, and no way to show they did.
So, my guess is that means a big fight over the meaning of the legal requirements of ISL 5.4.4.2.1, and perhaps other documents. The chemistry leads right back to the law. But I won’t go into that right now.
Maybe folks can answer these in comments:
Full Post with Comments...What legal code will CAS be operating under? WADA "law" or Swiss law? Which one has precedence? If a question is not addressed by WADA law does Swiss law take over? Can this be exploited to allow discovery by the Landis team? Is Procedural Order 2 over, thereby allowing more discovery by the Landis team?Can CAS set precedent? From a science perspective, there are significant and unresolvable problems with doing reliable data analysis on the LNDD chromatographs. TBV and Ali's extensive (impressive and very enjoyable) Idiot series takes one step by step through what a scientist should realize intuitively. Whether those problems are due to bad chemistry, system noise, obsolete/misused hardware or software, technician incompetence, or other factors would be interesting to know if one were a lab director looking to improve results and performance.
But from the appeal point of view, (it seems to me at least) it appears that USADA may be able to squirm out through the ambiguities of the WADA law. Larry and M's discussion on TD2003IDCR has laid bare the difficulty of nailing down WADA law. One thoughtful and unbiased (I'm assuming M is unbiased since most participants on this site obviously are;-) lawyer has confounded everyone's best efforts at finding the Holy Grail of ISL violations.
There is no technical requirement that data analysis can only be done on reliable data. There is no requirement that results must conform to scientific principles established through the peer-reviewed system.
Can CAS look at the perponderance of evidence and set precedence by saying that LNDD's results do not meet some minimum scientific requirement "inherent" in WADA law even if not explicitly stated by a WADA TD or ISL?
If not, then I'm afraid Landis' best hope is to get off on what the media would view as a "technicality" like COC issues.
Sources say the CAS arbitrators for the Landis appeal have been selected. They are Jan Paulsson, David Rivkin, and David Williams.
Paulsson was the chair of the CAS panel on Landaluce, and was selected by Landis.
Rivkin was selected by USADA, and has served on other CAS panels, including Baxter v IOC (the Vicks Inhaler case), Tyler Hamilton's appeal, WADA and Cricket v. Asif and Akhtar, and IAAF v Giungi. Resume here.
David Williams was selected by CAS as the chair, some links: resume, on list of CAS Oceana Arbitrators, noted in New Zealand Olympic Committee press release, and at TAS-CAS:
Mr David A.R. Williams QC (New Zealand)
Auckland
New Zealand
Barrister and Arbitrator. Chief Justice of the Cook Islands (part time position). Former Judge of the High Court of New Zealand (1992-1994). President of the Arbitrators' & Mediators' Institute of New Zealand (2004-2006). Member New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing Industry Board (1996-2002). Former Member LCIA Court of Arbitration and ICC Court of Arbitration. Member of Board of Directors American Arbitration Association.
Some more; consolidated index in the main post on this series of released documents.
Ex 86 - April testing of 825428 - LNDD 824 (Landis from 28-Jul)
Ex 87 - April testing of 825429 - LNDD 922 (Landis from 22-Jul)
Ex 89 - April testing of 825423 - LNDD 1193 (Aguilera control)
Ex 90 - April testing of 825425 - LNDD 1207 (Landis from 14-Jul)
Ex 92 - April testing of 993865 - LNDD 1398 (Landis from 3-Jul)
Ex 93 - April testing of 825427 - LNDD 1492 (Aguilera control)
We don't see why Ex 92 on LNDD 1488 gives no value reported for the 5aA -pdiol. There are plenty of peaks in the region on LNDD 1466/1467, including one at 1358s reading -28.28 (w/pdiol -26.94 == -1.34). Was there a peak identification problem or a perception of matrix interference? If it's matrix interference, what criteria were used to decide that had happened?
Also, on Ex 92, why was peak 3 at 881 selected as the 5aAC IS instead of peak 2 at 873, when the SOP says to adjust the pressure to the IS is at 870s. Similarly, looking at Ex 86, we don't see how on LNDD 894/895, "peak 10" at 882s was selected as the 5aAC instead of "peak 9" at 874.3s, or why the two peaks following the "peak 22" "pdiol" were not identified and computed.
Continuing the previous discussion, Larry and M are cogitating over the recent document release, and Larry is trying to get at the identification issue one more time.
TBV is hoping to have a major look this week with a new collaborator working over integration issues, including contaminated peaks, so keep that in mind.
Larry wrote (in part):
I think we now have the definitive statement of USADA's final position on how FL's S17 IRMS peaks were identified by LNDD. You and I, and everyone else who is interested, needs to go to p. 46, Section H, at the following link:
USADA's Final Word
This link is to USADA's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. I need to read this more carefully, but it appears that:
1. FL's S17 IRMS peaks were identified at LNDD (a) by using RTs or RRTs to identify the IRMS peak representing the internal standard 5aA-AC, (b) then counting large IRMS peaks to the right of the internal standard peak and idenfifying each peak by reference to the large peaks identified in the GC/MS test.
2. So, probably the best way to characterize LNDD's criteria here is not to call it "pattern matching", but "large peak counting".
M, we can go on with this discussion a while longer if you like, but I have another idea. Why don't you and I take this opportunity to "rebrief" our respective positions, using the new material available here and all of the stuff we've learned over the past few weeks. Here's my proposal:
1. You and I would "stipulate" that the method used at LNDD to identify IRMS peaks is the one described in the USADA document cited above. We might agree in advance to a short statement of the facts in the case, so we wouldn't have to repeat that in our briefs.
2. Then each of us would write a relatively short brief setting forth our respective positions. The brief would be limited to whether the LNDD's IRMS identification of FL's S17 sample is an ISL departure sufficient to overturn the FL doping finding. We'd agree in advance to keep our briefs under a specified word limit.
3. I would propose to write my brief here on TBV, in stages, so that everyone could comment. I'd reserve the right to make the final edits.
4. We could limit these briefs to whether there was an ISL violation. This way, we wouldn't have to address the burden shifting kinds of arguments we'd have to make on causation, should the ISL departure be established. We could save THAT argument for later.
5. We'd each write out briefs in as non-formal way as our training will allow. We'd keep the tone friendly and respectful.
M wrote (in the document release comments):
I'm making a vow to take a break from reading all the exhibits.
