Dr. Christiane Ayotte’s cross examination has begun again. This time, she’s said something that sounds like it’s shot a major hole in the USADA case:
q: this is to make sure you identify the T and E?
a: for some tests, T or progesteron, that is possible; for E, which is small I have not often seen a lab that can meet the criteria for the E. there’s a limit to the identification and quantification.q: EX 24, USADA ,
[ deceaurriz and mongongu do not look happy on he video feed. ]
I think Dr. Ayotte just said that for such a low epitestosterone reading, it’s very difficult to actually identify and quantify the amount of epitestosterone correctly. I may be wrong on that, but this exchange seems to be heading in that direction.
Jacobs is doing this portion of the cross examination, he’s scoring a number of points, among them, this exchange:
: so the documentation package misidentifies this?
a: no, it’s just the wrong form. it did not identify a-d4. Maybe there was none.q: so what they identified on USADA 58 is not a-d4?
a: no.q: so something other than a-d4 is in this sample at the 438 ion, misidentified.
a: it’s not the right retention time. this is software processing numbers automatically, you get numbers.q: saying that substance identified is a different substance?
a: no.q: so saying a substance is identified with a single ion is incorect?
a: i didn’t say that.q: USADA 57 does list a concentraion?
a: that’s what happens.q: the machine misidentified the substance, what is it?
a: no clue.q: problem identifying with a single ion?
a: ???q: if they can identify anything, it should be an internal standard?
a: there’s a difference between the report and when the competer says there is a match.q: so this LDP that says A-d4 is not A-d4?
a: yes.q: don’t know what it is?
a: nope.
Looks like some of the things that have been identified as one thing may not be the thing they’ve identified it as. Confusing, no? Point is, if they’re not certain what’s been identified, the lab hasn’t provided proof of their conclusions. If USADA can’t refute things like this, they’re going to be in big trouble.
Further on, Jacobs starts looking into whether certain documentation was provided, and if not, should it have been:
q: ISL page 22, 5.2.6.1, EX 8. given that the positive controls are not present, it would not be possible to evaluate this data?
a: I disagree with you sir.q: this is not true?
a: they compared to internal standards, and look at conf data, it’s close, and other data is consistent.q: but the reason for the positive control is to be sure you can identify…
a: no. had the lab decide to do something else that is perfectly correct.q: so a positive control is not used to identify a prohibited substance?
a: no, had I needed the Q/C result, I’d have asked.q: so it’s ok to leave chromatograms from an injection sequence out of a package?
a: if I feel the need, I can ask.q: so the positive controls are irrelevant?
a: no, it wasn’t there, and I didn’t feel I needed the need to look at the qc sample.q: and it’s ok not to get it.
a: I’m certain if I had requested, I’d have been given it.q: but not us.
a: i can’t say.
In the last series of exchanges between Jacobs and Dr. Ayotte, he has her look at some good examples of chromatograms and some not-so-good examples. The good examples, which came from her lab make her uneasy. It also draws a comment from Barnett, one of USADA’s lawyers. Barnett, however, gets smacked down by the head of the arbitration panel. When the exchange is over, Jacobs seems to have scored some points about the quality of data from LNDD. Then …
NO QUESTIONS.
NO REDIRECT.
BARNETT: I inquired when Geoghegan would be available to testify. What I heard back was that he was not here, he has counsel.
Concern he has been hidden.
BRUNET: we have no power to compel. I would not draw a conclusion Mr. Suh told him not to appear.
BARNETT: We’ll think about a different remedy.
SUH: We took a break so he could obtain and retain counsel. He was fired. That would be appropriate. We will give them contact of that counsel, and USADA can contact him.
BARNETT: allegations he admitted publicly, we’ll be happy to take it up with his counsel.
Amazingly, USADA doesn’t try to rehabilitate Dr. Ayotte’s testimony. I’m not sure why. Barnett seems very determined to put Will Geoghegan on the stand, but I’m not sure what relevance that has to the current case. Will’s actions, while reprehensible, did not actually deter LeMond from testifying. So, while Will may have broken some laws regarding witness tampering, he has not actually prevented USADA from getting all the evidence they wanted from LeMond.
In fact, Will’s actions probably helped USADA out, public relations-wise. But Barnett is determined. Maurice Suh put Barnett in his place. Geoghegan has hired counsel, he’s publicly taken responsibility and apologized. USADA should take it up with Will’s counsel, and whatever the appropriate authorities are.
Rant,
Seems like USADA scored maximum points yeterday with Lemond. What more can they milk of this with Will? They risk allowing will to defuse it by looking sympathetic or offering some kind of excuse.
They won on this and they move on to other battles.
On another front, I wrote this over at DPF, would love to hear your thoughts …..
I’m not a scientist but it seems that Landis attroneys on cross have established lots of mistakes and errors and questionable procedures. No one of these individually invalidates the AAF. Maybe taken together they collectively rise to the level of invaidiating the AAF.
I expect that one of Landis’s experts (Scott? Davis?) is going to reference all these admissions and explain why it invalidates some or all of the tests.
Even if the panel has the knowledge of a scientist, THe defense has to SAY why the AAF is invalid. They cannot assume the panel will connect the dots.
It is WAY to early to pass judgement on Landis’ defense (mainly becuase it has not started). It is not too early to say USADA case has not been that impressive, they are allowing the LNDD to look bad by letting Jacobs and Suh highlight all these errors/mistakes. In the long run, this cannot help their case.
You wrote “Barnett seems very determined to put Will Geoghegan on the stand, but I’m not sure what relevance that has to the current case.”
I should think that would be obvious: no doubt his first question would be “To your knowledge, has Floyd Landis ever used PED’s?”
” If USADA can’t refute things like this, they’re going to be in big trouble.”
This presumes that the hearing is fair. If 2 of 3 arbitrators have already made up their minds, it doesn’t much matter how screwed up the lab is. I’m curious if anyone out there has direct experience of one of these hearings (one of the 34 that athletes have lost) to say whether other cases have had similarly obvious failures on the part of testers. Or is this unusual? Although I do think the conclusion is foregone, I hope that this newfound transparency will lead, eventually, to greater accountability.
ORG,
In looking at Lyle’s comment, I think that’s about the only question that USADA could ask Will that would have any direct bearing on the case. His phone call to LeMond was beyond stupid. But as far as an witness tampering charges go (and this is arbitration, it’s not a court case, so the jury’s out on whether any charges would be filed), that’s a matter for the local prosecutor. USADA questioning him about it would only be to case aspersions on Floyd’s character, or that of the other members of his defense team.
But since Will issued his statement, I would expect that he’s going to say that’s his story and he’s sticking to it. I’ve got to wonder if this has killed any friendship between Floyd and Will, that’s why I put in the subhead “Et tu, Will?” on one of my posts yesterday. Did Floyd feel betrayed by one of his closest friends? If I had been in the same situation, I know I would.
On the science, Team Landis does seem to be scoring more points than USADA. That makes a difference if the arbs are all coming at this with open minds. If, however, they’ve already made their minds up, then this is all for show, and no matter who scores what points, the result would be a foregone conclusion.
I’m hoping for open minds. But I wouldn’t be surprised by anything in this case. It’s already had more plot twists than even the best Hollywood thrillers. And there’s still more to come…
Lyle,
Point taken.
JR,
Yes, if it’s a foregone conclusion then none of this matters. None of the testimony. None of yesterday’s fireworks. None of the hard work people are putting into covering it, either. I’m hoping that the spotlight shining on the process might moderate behavior. Once this gets appealed, it goes back into the dark, and we’ll not be privy to how things play out. Transparency is always preferable, and like you, I hope it leads to greater accountability.
– Rant