The Landis hearings ended with the testimony of two more witnesses: Joseph Papp, a professional cyclist (part 1 and part 2 of his testimony) who appeared at the “request” of USADA, and Dr. Bruce Goldberger. Amazingly, it appears that all of the witnesses listed for today will be testifying. And perhaps they will all be finished by the end of the hearing.
Papp is a cyclist who’s competed since he was a junior in 1989, with a break in the mid-90s to 2000 for college. After he finished college, he returned to racing in 2001 and says he noticed that the peloton had gotten faster in his absence. Someone he met suggested seeing a doctor to get EPO, which this person told him was something everyone in the peloton was using.
Papp’s is a familiar story, for those acquainted with doping stories from the world of cycling. Whether doping is a prevalent as Papp says, or not, is hard for those of us who haven’t competed in the pro ranks to know. He certainly makes it sound that way.
The whole point of putting him on the stand is to give voice to USADA’s theory about what Floyd Landis has been doing and how he’s been doing it. However, Papp has never met, raced with, been on a team with, or spoken to Landis. So he can’t testify to what Floyd did. He can only testify to what he, himself, did. I listened in for the first part of his testimony, before having to leave my computer outpost in at the Rant home office.
Papp comes across as calm and poised, and he tells his story well. USADA’s lawyer led him through the questioning, establishing Papp’s background and experience. They’ve laid everything out on the table, at least as far as how Papp did things, and who (without naming too many names) he got the drugs from. Maurice Suh did the cross examination, and he was tough on Papp. At least, that’s how the transcript reads. I wasn’t watching it live at the time. The most benefit for USADA was to lay their theory out using Papp as the storyteller.
Papp, you should know, just signed an agreement with USADA yesterday over a doping violation of his own. There’s speculation that he’s received a lesser suspension for cooperating with USADA in the Landis case. And it appears he’s cooperating with Federal prosecutors in a doping case in San Diego. USADA could have laid this theory out in a number of ways, they’ve chosen to use Papp and throw him to the wolves (or under the bus, as Bill Hue says in a post at TBV). If Papp didn’t get anything in return for helping USADA, then he’s pretty well screwed himself.
Last witness of the day was Dr. Bruce Goldberger. Goldberger is actually a defense witness, but due to scheduling concerns he gave his testimony this afternoon, instead of after Team Landis formally kicks off their defense.
Goldberger’s testimony is much more dense, if you will, than Papp’s. Goldberger is a forensic toxicologist who has been invited to apply for the post Don Catlin held at the UCLA lab. He’s got solid credentials, judging by the summaries at TBV. Goldberger talks about a number of problems he found with the documentation pack — problems he sees in the chromatograms, and problems as to whether the lab has properly isolated the metabolites and ions that they claim to have found. He speaks of the importance of proper lab documentation:
q: in your review of the documentation here, did you notice errors that caused concern?
a: I was reluctant to become involved. I looked at some documents, late, and after my review, I saw glaring issues with how chemistry was performed, and signed on.q: did you also notice mislabeling and documentation.
a: yes. forensic correction policy; there should be no obliteration, so it can be read in the future.q: why?
a: because we’re human and make mistakes.[Ayotte looks Pained.]
This is an issue that has been raised in the Arnie Baker slide shows since last fall. A short while later, this exchange happens:
q: you see this other entry?
a: you can’t see it on the screen.q: so we have a misnumbering wasn’t even numbering.
a: it’s a fatal flaw, how do we know we have the right sample?q: cause you concern?
a: tremendous. when I look at testing, it’s the first thing I look at and it’s incorrect.q: there are a number of other pages with crossed out forensic corrections, right?
a: yes.
Goldberger is on point with everything that’s been released to date by Team Landis. And there’s more:
q: seing a page like this without any notations, concern?
a: yes. it’s a consistent pattern. I had an employee with a 4 that started as a two; I counselled her to do an initialled strikeout.q: if the response is how does that affect the results?
a: it might, we might not. Its the building of problems in the package that concerns me.q: there are other pages?
a: more than several.q: what effect did the totality of these corrections give you on the reliability of these results.
a: it’s unreliable.q: why?
a: it’s your documentation. What I said about inspecting, the documents tell you the care.
And then there’s chain of custody, another issue that Arnie Baker called out as a problem over the past umpteen months:
q: what is a proper chain of custody?
a: start with collection through disposal. Include all transfers, all steps, every time handled by a human it should be documented.q: what is the significance if there is an omission?
a: terrible. demonstrates lack of attention to documentation. I’ve seen it that the Coc is completed retrospectively, filling out forms in the afternoon after doing the work. That’s wrong. You need to know exactly where it’s at at any particular time.q: did this document reveal CoC issues?
a: yes.q: what about lab transfers. Is that something that is required for good lab practice?
a: yes. everything should be recored.q: location at all times?
a: yes.
After that, Landis lawyer Howard Jacobs questions Goldberger over the T/E tests and the IRMS. That gets into the pretty technical, so to sum it up succinctly: Goldberger sees a number of issues with the data that makes him doubt the conclusions drawn by the lab.
On cross examination, USADA lawyer Richard Young is very focused in his questions. He quickly hones in on weaknesses in Goldberger’s testimony and draws them out. Goldberger’s lab is not an ISO or WADA accredited lab. Young uses that to imply that Goldberger’s critiques come from someone who is not a member of the club, and not qualified to comment.
Young tries to get Goldberger on the chain of custody requirements, but by my reading of the exchange, it doesn’t appear to have worked. Young does get Goldberger to admit that his lab sends out its testosterone analyses to another lab. And as the session finishes up for the evening, Jacobs, on redirect, goes back to Goldberger’s testimony over the chromatography. At this point, questioning will pick up at 9:30 a.m. tomorrow morning. Goldberger’s testimony is done.
On the witness list for tomorrow: Wilhelm Schnäzer, Phd (by telephone), Director, Institute of Biochemistry of the German Sports University Cologne; Don H. Catlin, M.D., Professor Emeritus of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology and former founder and director, Olympic Analytical Laboratory, UCLA; and Floyd Landis, the reigning 2006 Tour de France champion.
Tomorrow’s hearings promise to be very interesting, especially if/when Landis takes the stand.
