The Floyd Landis hearings at Pepperdine University School of Law will begin in a few hours. Here’s a quick recap of yesterday’s testimony, and a look forward to who’s testifying today.
Dr. J. Thomas Brenna and Cynthia Mongongu testified yesterday. Brenna’s testimony finished with his cross-examination by Maurice Suh and some further rebuttal questions from Richard Young. Brenna inadvertently did some damage to USADA’s case by responding that measurement uncertainty (also called margin of error) had to be considered when making a determination about whether or not the result exceeds a certain threshold.
USADA has claimed that measurement uncertainty didn’t need to be considered. This is a contentious point, as by USADA’s standard, two of the four metabolites in Landis’ sample show elevated readings, but when measurement uncertainty is factored in, only one metabolite shows an elevated reading. One could expect a witness for the Landis side to say so, but having an expert witness on the USADA side saying so shoots at least one hole in USADA’s case. Along with that revelation, using the standard where measurement uncertainty is not factored in, Brenna told the hearing that some of the sample analysis could not be reliably reproduced with any any precision.
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.
This, too, bolsters some of the arguments we can expect to hear from Team Landis. And Brenna also testified that some data had been overwritten, and given his understanding, would not be easy to recover. This was an outgrowth of a line of questioning over some log files, which Landis’ lawyers contend a senior USADA official tried to keep from the Landis defense team.
Cynthia Mongongu’s testimony was beset by translation interpretation problems at the beginning of her testimony, taking about three hours to finally be resolved. Eventually, another translator interpreter had to be called in. Then Mongongu’s testimony started in earnest. She testified about the security and procedures at the lab, answering questions from USADA attorney Daniel Dunn. Much was dry, detailed material, but two exchanges were important.
In one exchange, Dunn tried to rehabilitate Brenna’s testimony earlier in the day, walking Mongongu line by line through the log files from various tests to determine exactly what happened. Under questioning,
Mongongu explained those erasures. She said the first entries that look like tests weren’t really tests — only a process of “priming” the machine to get it ready for the real tests, the results of which erase the former, useless results.
Now, to my ears that sounds a bit odd. Not the part about priming, but the part about erasing the data produced during those steps. That doesn’t seem like good scientific practice to me. Every bit of data has a story to tell. If the story is that the machine was being primed at the time, then the data would show that. And by erasing data, we don’t really know if it was what we’re being told it was. We have to rely on Mlle. Mongongu’s testimony, and while she may be a credible witness, having the data to back up her story would be much preferable. I would expect Maurice Suh to pursue this in questioning today.
The other major item that came out in yesterday’s testimony contained this exchange between Dunn and Mongongu:
q: summarizing — a bottle that got mixed up, a little vial, you saw the data was wrong.
a: yes.q: then fixed the problem and re-ran to generate correct data.
a: yes.q: now we don’t have enough time to go into more of these. Did any of these cause you to — strike.
q: you didn’t mix up the bottles, you copied the wrong line of text?
a: yes, I didn’t increment a copy and paste on the level of the instrument I finished a copy and on the level of the bottle, it stayed the same as on the alkane.
This appears to be one of the problems that have been alluded to in Landis’ Wiki defense — mislabeled samples. It could also be the basis of suggestions that another sample bottle was incorrectly labeled with Landis’ sample number. If the latter were the case, then any results might be correct, but they might not be Landis’ results.
Whatever really happened during this part of the testing, we can expect Maurice Suh will be very diligent in his cross examination.
Assuming that no translation interpretation problems occur today, the hearings should run a bit smoother than yesterday. Once Mongongu’s cross examination, followed by USADA’s final rebuttal questioning are complete, we can expect two or more witnesses to testify during the remainder of the day.
First will probably be Claire Frelat, the other LNDD analytical chemist who worked on Landis’ A and B samples from Stage 17. She will likely be grilled on her role in the testing process, and any issues that might stem from the work she performed. USADA will be looking for testimony that shows LNDD followed all applicable standards and protocols.
After that will be Dr. Christiane Ayotte, director of the Canadian anti-doping laboratory in Montreal. Ayotte will probably speak to the question of how many metabolites it takes to declare a positive finding. She has already stated publicly that she believes only one metabolite needs to be elevated to make that determination. Expect cross examination on that point to be very, well, pointed.
If time permits, two other witnesses are also on the list for today: Esther Cerpolini
and Ruddy Barlagne, who are both listed as analytical chemists at LNDD.
Given the translation problems that occurred yesterday, I think the panel’s wisdom in not allowing depositions of the LNDD staff to be done in Paris was a mistake. Even with a good translator interpreter, this slows down the procedure and puts a crimp into the time schedule. Perhaps that’s all part of USADA’s plan: Use up so much time that Team Landis has less time to make their own case. Or perhaps USADA didn’t realize just how time-consuming such an endeavor would be. If things keep moving slowly, expect that Sunday, originally planned as a day off, will be a full day of testimony instead.
Rant,
I’m not sure at this point if Landis is even going to need to put on a case. USADA is their own worst enemy. If this continues, I wonder if USADA is even going to be able to prove its case. Word is that today is expected to be very interesting. Can’t wait to see what unfolds.
BTW, never responded to your humorous response to my response over at TBV a couple of days ago. I said something about my mind going 100 mph and you told me to slow down. Did not want me to end up with an AAF. Good one. NO, great one.
Cal
Hi Rant:
First, let me say again, great job. It is beyond expectations to see such well digested coverage! The comments from readers are also thought provoking. Great job all!!
I was reading ORG’s comment from the Third Update. I hadn’t thought that team Landis would be trying to “pump fake” USADA with the Wiki, but ORG’s reasoning is pretty compelling; especially coupled with your belief that there are more (and more damning) arguments to come from the Landis side.
Also, if you agree with ORG’s idea, how critical is Mongongu’s cross today? Certainly, Landis will want to discredit her (the reason for their smiles?). But, there are lots more wittnesses to come — will they be saving their ammo?
Cal,
The way it’s going, it appears Landis will walk all over USADA. But when it comes to the final decision, it rests with three men, two of whom have ruled against Landis several times on pre-hearing motions. Are they approaching the hearings with open minds and just giving USADA every last opportunity to try and prove their case? Or have they already made up their minds and the hearings are a cover to put a veneer of following the procedure on the final ruling? Hard to say. I’m not betting the farm on the outcome, yet, but it looks promising for Team Landis. And, by the way, beware those non-analytical speeding tickets. I hear they’re quite expensive in your neck of the woods. 😉
Steve,
I think that the testimony of Mongongu and Frelat will be among the most crucial for USADA. If Team Landis can pick them apart, then I think USADA’s case crashes and burns. If Team Landis can chip away at the pretty picture Mongongu’s testimony may have created yesterday (warts and all), then they will have shot more holes in the case, just like they did with Brenna yesterday. Every witness is important, but the most important ones are those who testify over what was really done and what the protocols and standards require.
So far, it appears that Team Landis is able to take apart USADA’s witnesses. If they can keep doing that, they’re in good shape. But remember, USADA may be able to shoot a few holes in the testimony of the witnesses Team Landis calls, too.
In the end, it will be about whose argument held up better — assuming the outcome isn’t a foregone conclusion.
– Rant
Hi Rant!
Do you think this open hearing will help Landis side? At least so far USADA have failed, so does the public opinion have any count, or is it like you said before, between the 3 men who decides the outcome of the case?
anyway, too early to jump to any conclusions, but l think team Landis have fought back well.
Thanks againg for the great posts!
imme,
I think the open hearing is certainly to Landis’ advantage, at least as far as the public relations aspect goes. I hope that with the light of day shining on the hearing process that the arbitrators will be fair in their judgment. I have my misgivings, based on some of the rulings that occurred before the hearing. But it’s early days, and we just have to wait and see.
– Rant
{ 2 trackbacks }