Day four of the Floyd Landis hearings will begin in a few hours. Time for a quick recap and look at the day ahead.
Yesterday’s hearing started with Landis lawyer Maurice Suh asking whether the panel would consider hold a session on Saturday, due to concerns about the amount of time the case has been taking. It was a prescient move, but probably not for the reasons Suh anticipated. Patrice Brunet responded that the panel would consider that at the beginning of Thursday’s session. So, expect Team Landis to make the request again this morning.
The day started with a run-down of how much time is allotted to each side and how much time each side had left. When the morning began, Team Landis had more time available, by about 3 hours. That’s pretty much to be expected, as USADA has been using their time to lay out their case. But the vast bulk of yesterday’s questioning was done by the Landis side, so when things start up this morning, Team Landis will probably have a couple of hours less time available to them than USADA. The total originally allotted to each side was 23 hours.
Yesterday’s session featured a long, at times very slow, cross-examination of Cynthia Mongongu, one of the lab technicians who tested Floyd Landis’ A and B samples after Stage 17 of the 2006 Tour de France. Mongongu and her co-worker Claire Frelat, and the work they did and how they performed their work are central to the case. However, I don’t know if the Landis defense team meant to take so much time on Mongongu’s cross examination. Many of her answers were evasive, and she claimed a fuzzy memory for a number of things, but was able amidst the foggy memories to remember other things quite clearly.
Fireworks erupted at the end of the day over whether USADA had provided certain discovery materials, with Team Landis saying no and USADA claiming yes. The Landis side to a bit of a hit, when the panel seemed to rule against them by, in effect, saying, “Yes, you did receive the material.”
But things were looking up as the day closed, when Chris Campbell started questioning Mongongu directly. What he may be looking for and where he is going with the information he gathered from her questions is not clear. However, he may be building a case for throwing out the other B samples, or he may be building his case for a strongly-worded dissent later on down the line. Only time will tell.
Three people are up for today. The day will begin with Claire Frelat, one of Mongongu’s co-workers who was also involved in the Stage 17 tests. USADA will no doubt be looking for her testimony to support the idea that everything was done properly and by the book. Team Landis will probably focus on items that will show errors, or gaps in timelines, or breaks in the chain of custody for Landis’ sample. This could take some time. Hopefully not all day, but we shall see.
Assuming that Frelat’s testimony is wrapped up before the end of the day, next up will probably be Dr. Christiane Ayotte, the head of Canada’s anti-doping lab in Montreal. She is expected to testify in favor of the French lab, and in favor of their interpretation of the standard of a single metabolite being enough to declare a positive doping test. No doubt, Team Landis will do their best to shoot holes in that theory.
And finally, if time permits, Greg LeMond, the first American to win the Tour de France will speak. LeMond and Floyd Landis spoke once last fall, for about an hour according to one report I read. According to one version of that conversation it was mostly LeMond talking, with little talking done by Landis. Exactly what was said during the conversation isn’t known, although we may hear LeMond’s side of it, should he testify today.
LeMond will probably testify about doping in the peloton, perhaps even as far back as when he was competing. He has said in the past that he never doped, but that doping in the peloton made it harder and harder for him to keep up with other riders towards the end of his career.
However, should LeMond start testifying today, don’t expect Team Landis to cross examine him before tomorrow. Three witnesses completed in one day in a very contentious arbitration hearing is probably not going to happen. But I could be wrong.
Morning Rant!
I have been thinking of yesterday and think team Landis did pretty well. If their goal is to shift the burden back to USADA/WADA they need to prove that LNDD didn’t follow international lab standards, right? Do you think they got enough substnative admissions from Mongongu to establish that the lab (1) did not document whatever problems caused the 5 hour gap in the B sample test, (2) did maintain proper chain of custody (3) used a machine that had consistent problems? I also think team Landis question of “did you leak to L’Equipe is pretty smart — I am sure they will ask everybody and everybody will deny. The conclusion will be that (1) one of them is a liar or (2) there is somebody in the lab is dishonest. The combination of factors is pretty deadly (bad procedure bad people) — don’t you think?
Steve,
My view is that Team Landis did well in raising some of the very points you’ve outlined. I would hope they’re doing well enough to be shifting the burden back to USADA. My biggest concern is over how much time they had to burn in the process. I didn’t track it, but they were doing the majority of the questioning. Mlle. Mongongu was, through her testimony, drawing down their time clock — whether intentionally or not, however, is hard to say.
So far, I think Team Landis has done pretty well. Team USADA, on the other hand, hasn’t been as impressive in their strategy (except for that dustup yesterday), and they leave me wondering whether USADA is getting the taxpayer’s money’s worth from hiring outside counsel. Interesting that Tygart has been there watching. If he’s got the time to watch, how come he doesn’t have the time to participate?
To my eyes, Team Landis is building a good case. But what the general public think of as a good case and what the three panel members think may be two different matters. However that works out, it will be out in public for all to see.
– Rant
Steve, Interesting point. After asking all LNDD employees if they leaked to L’Equipe and they all deny it, the next question is who else has access to the data. If no one, then someone is lying or the data is not secure. If there is someone else, do they have authorization to see the data? This could be interesting…
Illinoisfrank,
Good point. If they get to ask everyone involved and no one owns up to leaking the info, it begs the question: Who’s telling the truth? And the other question becomes: If they all are, who else has access to the info and is able to pass it along to Damien Ressiot.
– Rant
Rant: Thanks for your feedback. I feel better. I agree with you about the USADA case to date — their witnesses have created more problems for them than they have solved.
I remember your warnings about the clock ticking throughout the week (35 hours to each side?). Now that I think about it, it seems pretty unfair to limit the process to 70 hours given that this arbitration is going to cost somebody $10 million plus! More fun facts with numbers: if 70 hours and the $10M cost (probably low) is accurate, an hour is worth $142K (!) and the Mongongu testimony cost somebody $1,700,000!??!
All of which begs the question, what in the world is USADA doing calling LeMond? It is hard to imagine he has direct evidence about Landis; therefore, anything he says is circumstantial and vaguely relevant. When you stand back and think, the only reason for USADA to call LeMond is that they (1) have a weak case, (2) are trying to consume time and (3) want to take a shot at making some Pound-ian headlines.
Time to hunker down for another day … again, thanks very much for all the effort and talent you are putting into this!