Hue- Eye of the Storm Day 2
Brunet picks up on what Young put on the overhead prior to the break and asks "doesn't that resolve it"?
[MORE]
Suh is talking about the big picture but Brunet is going with the Young "ruse" performed at the end of the last section of the examination.
Young is a clever fellow.
Now Young slowly and with the confidence of one who is sure of the results of his argument, lays the blame again on Landis' attorney and his representatives who were kicked out of the lab in Paris (the Panel has determined in the Decision filed last night that Landis' attorneys were responsible for a private deal that overrode the Panel's permitting them to be present at all "B" sample re-testing.). Young knows what is working and has worked with "the majority" at least twice we know of: Find a convuluted way to blame Landis' lawyers for whatever problems they claim and hoist them on their own petard.
Campbell interrupts and asked if they were surprised by the answer. I think he'd like to entertain an adjournment of some kind but Suh misses that point. He wants the destroyed electronic files. The condescending lawyer (Barnett) again says they have all they need. They have it, he says, in essence "move on" and cry over it later. They continue their discussion.
The Panel's helper behind the witness is keeping time and Campbell tells him NOT to dock Landis' time but to count this discussion within the Panel's time.
Suh says they got the 44/45 graphs May 5 and have not had time to work with them.
Brunet says "No, you have had them since January" and "your expert should have been able to deal with it", adopting the 2nd Young "gambit", presented above.
Brunet got the memo.
Campbell asks whether it could be resolved by analysis at UCLA. Dr Simon Davis comes down front in a blue t-shirt. Campbell wants to swear him in. He apparently has a machine here with the software loaded.
Barnett continues to personalize and blame, in his "superior" and "weary" tone.
Young stands for his latest educational presentation. He wants no further testing.
Campbell says wouldn't Suh have had to be a clairvoyant to know what the witness would say or need?
Barnett jams Suh again. He mischaracterizes Suh's misunderstanding of Campbells question. He is the only lawyer on either side that bothers me. The rest are highly professional. Barnett seems to be angling for a partnership or a better equity share (if he has one already) to me. Lawyers get those things by being pitbulls or bringing in revenue. He looks to be doing both.
Young goes 3 for 3. No further testing. Suh terminates his cross and they get set for redirect.
All Mongongu. All day.
Young is up. He gets her into the same room as Ms. Ferlot by leading question (something she didn't mention before. She said she reviewed the results on paper). Now he tells her where she "always" put the aliquots when she wasn't using them. She agrees. He's done his job and has taken the reigns in USADA's search for the truth. That truth, in many details, is not coming spontaneously from a witness but is coming in from him. BRAVO!
The rules allow this, by the way. He's done.
Campbell has some questions!
This is also within the rules.
He is asking about chain in custody issues involving Cirpolini. He asks if she is to understand the ISL as part of her job requirements. She says she has to have read them and acknowledges she has to understand them too, when Campbell redirects her to his original question which was exactly that. Young jumps in to slow it down some.
He seeks clarification of a report (that it affirms a "positive") and asks for the French version.
Barnnet jumps in and says Exhibit 99. This concerns the definition of "adverse analytical finding". Brunet gives the interpreter the correct french terminology. Does Exhibit 88 record an "adverse analytical finding?" She says yes.
