In the opening part of Tuesday’s hearing, Maurice Suh cross-examined Dr. J. Thomas Brenna, USADA’s second witness in the case. A potentially significant exchange occurred between Suh and Brenna having to do with the margin of error for the IRMS test results.
Q: Let’s turn to the blanks. Original -1.59, auto reprocessed -3.65. Significant?
A: yes.
Q: do you find anything notable about that difference compared to the other two?
A: don’t follow.
Q: Do you see that this now exceeds the 3 mil threshold?
A: Yes, but not the -3.8 standard that applies.
Q: Are you aware that USADA argues there is no uncertainty in the determination, and that 3.0 is the limit?
A: No, I’m not familiar with that.
Q: Let me show you what they say in their brief paragraph 91. “under the ISL, LNDD statement is correct, LNDD was not required to take into account uncertainty in their delta values.” Do you disagree?
A: No. I don’t know what it means.
Q: You don’t understand what that sentence means?
A: I don’t understand the rules.
Q: You understand by your calculation the -3.51 doesn’t exceed the limit?
A: I’m not USADA.
Q: your statement contradicts USADA’s position. You say thie -3.65 isn’t positive because of the-.8?
Do you agree or disagree with USADA’s position?A: Not going to say.
What Maurice Suh has gotten Dr. Brenna to say is that USADA/LNDD’s contention that they don’t have to take into account the margin of error in determining positive results is incorrect. In his lab, he would not declare a finding within the margin of error as being positive. And this is a huge admission coming from USADA’s own witness, rather than a witness called by Team Landis.
The effect of this exchange is that it bolsters the Landis argument that only one metabolite showed a “positive” result. USADA’s contention up to now is that there were two metabolites positive. So Team Landis have punched a hole in USADA’s arguments here. The questioning continues:
Q: should the reported value take into account the uncertainty?
A: Yes, i think it should take it into account.
Q: In the chart when there is -1.6 in the blank turns to -3.45 . significant?
A: yes.
Q: Can you show me any two values that are the same?
A: Many, within the range of experimental error.
Q: Within .8?
A: yes.
Q: Without applying uncertainty, as USADA says you shouldn’t, are any the same?
A: No. In a restricted sense, no, they are not identical.
Q: If you were to have processed your data and see this variance as a total picture, would it cause you concern?
A: In my lab?
Q: yes.
A: Yes.
USADA’s got some damage control to do now. Brenna has basically said that some of the data would be a problem, if he saw it come from experimental results in his lab.
Other revelations that came out in Brenna’s testimony are that some of the data processing for test results overwrote the original data. Go back, read that again if you want. That’s right, some of the reruns of the data erased the original data and results. Which is also bad for USADA, as without the original data, you can’t truly verify anything they report.
If the data’s been processed and reprocessed and reprocessed again, who’s to say that some errors or changes weren’t replacing original data. In fact, some of the test results change dramatically on reprocessing, going from well within the acceptable limits, to being outside the limits when applying the LNDD/USADA standard of not having to include the measurement uncertainty (margin of error by a more proper name).
Here’s part of the exchange:
q: then at 11:49:43, starting same thing mixcal. Is that a rerun?
a: yes.
q: see another at 12:05. Same filename?
a: it would seem to be correct.
q: is there any record of the overwritten data in the raw file?
a: not knowing the system, I can’t say for sure. If it was Windows, its essentially gone.
q: because it was saved with the same filename.
a: yes.
Can you say, “Oops!”? That wasn’t a particularly bright thing to do. To his credit, Richard Young tries to salvage any damage in his rebuttal questions, but the damage may already have been done.
Then again, this is arbitration, not a courtroom. So we really don’t know how the arbitrators will understand and interpret Brenna’s testimony today.
Rant, between you and TBV we wouldn’t know anything!! That was eye-opening line of questioning. THANK YOU!
Rant:
Awsome reporting! Thanks. Hard to imagine anybody who knows anything about data processing saying the results represent anything at all if the original data has been overwritten. And, like you, I am not an arbitrator so who knows what they will say. I hadn’t put it together in my head but it makes sense that overwritten data would cause substantial variance in results. At least it’s more plausible than one test with six guys where one guy was really doping with testosterone! Can’t wait to hear what happens when we get to talk to the LNDD chemists!
Thanks for your summaries. This is the best information I have found.
Yes, thank you! I knew that Brenna had backed himself into a corner, but didn’t understand what the measurements quoted had meant.
Rant, your thoughs of having the translations? Seemed pretty bad so far..
thanks!
The mind boggles, Rant, at the overwriting of the data. What was in their little minds while they did that? “Keep trying, keep trying. We can always go back to what we had before. . . . Oh, we can’t? Well, you don’t tell anyone, I don’t tell anyone, OK?”
–marc
Rant, This is actually a reply to myself on a comment I made on another Rant (Tuesday: Second Update). Turns out that Wordpress thinks 15 seconds lasts forever and won’t let me post this in the other thread 25 minutes–now 51 minutes) after my first post).
I got my answer (about who hires translators) over at TBV: “Pursuant to pretrial orders, the parties are required to provide translators, if necessary. The translation is not simultaneous and Mr Brunet, who speaks French and English, has inserted himself into the matter, to correct translation and to attempt to aid in technical scientific terminology. The interpreter chosen by USADA for the very important task and very important witness is not competent. The irony of that has not been lost on anyone here.” Also, apparently, Arnie Baker is a native of Quebec and is fluent in French. (I’m not sure what
IllinoisFrank,
Sorry about that, I have never been able to find the part of WordPress that does that. If I ever do, I’m going to change the timeout so that it really works again in 15 seconds. The same thing has been a pain in the tail end for me, too, when trying to reply to people’s comments.
– Rant