Tuesday Hearings: Final Update

He may not have knocked the ball out of the ballpark just yet, but Dr. Simon Davis’ testimony helped bolster the case being presented by Floyd Landis’ lawyers to the arbitration panel during hearings at the School of Law on the campus of Pepperdine University. Davis, an expert in IRMS instrumentation, was a very wise choice as a witness, having worked for the company that manufactured the Isoprime unit in use at LNDD, France’s anti-doping laboratory.

Davis’ testimony covered a lot of ground on Tuesday afternoon, but even at the end of the day, Team Landis was still conducting their direct examination. They are expected to finish tomorrow morning, after which, USADA will get time to cross examine Davis. Depending on whether USADA calls any rebuttal witnesses (Dr. J. Thomas Brenna is a likely witness), it may even be possible to see closing arguments completed by the end of the day. On that, we’ll have to wait and see.

During the first part of Davis’ testimony, Maurice Suh, one of Landis’ attorneys, asked Davis a number of questions about his background and the basic theory of how carbon isotope ratio tests work. Davis went into some detail about how the machine works, and a number of concepts related to IRMS testing.

Then, the questioning gets down to things more accessible to the layman. Such as the story that LNDD did not have an operating manual for the Isoprime instrument. The exchange also includes a discussion of some of the pressure issues Davis noted in LNDD’s operation of the Isoprime.

q: important to have the manual?
a: it’s essential. they aren’t washing machines. they are very complex. you can’t keep the details in your mind. the best way is in an electronic document. most users are not machine experts, and they require instructions and procedures to ensure the machine is working correctly and properly.

q: does the manual contain useful information for operation. Penning gauge?
a: gives you a reading of pressure in the instrument.

q: what is that?
a: when analyzing atoms, you can’t have anything else there, you need a vacuum. If there’s CO2 from elsewhere, you’ll be contaminated.

[ Brenna looks to be dozing ]

a: the penning guage tells you how much bad stuff is there, in millibars.

GDC 522.204, page from manual items 2 “monitor the pressure” and 3, “operating pressure between 2 and 4 E-6 mbar.”

[ suh is smiling ]

q: what are they advising the owner and operator to do?
a: keep the pressures low enough.

A bit further on, Suh asks Davis about the effects of running at the wrong pressure.

q: effect of running at wrong pressure?
a: I have seen many different effects; could be non-linearity; low pressure and non-linearity seems to coincide at LNDD.

BRUNET: show us the wrong pressure again. Is the penning important?

a: oh yes. it’s where the sample is.

a: also concerned pressure changed between screen shots, and Mongongue had seen as high at 5.6 to 6 E-6; what we see over the analysis is a varying source pressure, which is not a good thing.

But Davis is just getting warmed up. After a break, his testimony continues. Apparently, from the questions Suh asked Davis, there were discrepancies between the data provided in the detailed sections of the lab’s documentation package, and the data provided in the summary sections.

q: so the data doesn’t match.
a: nope.

And then they go into how the testing was conducted, including various reinjections of samples.

q: describe what reinjection is?
a: injecting again and again.

q: are the logs consistent with re-injecting?
a: yes; we don’t generally know, but it appears they are reinjecting samples and standards.

q: what would that mean, isn’t that ok.
a: It’s ok if documented in a proper chain of custody — even running someone eles’s samples in the middle. Here we have no idea what is going on. If an engineer came back with a log with gaps like this, I’d be suspicious. Maybe they are in a rush to get home, and pick the best 5 of 10 samples as the contemporaneous results.

And manual reprocessing comes up, as well.

q: can you describe manual reprocessing?
a: there are as many strategies as there are operators. It’s subjective interpretation.

Next, Suh wants to have Davis do some demonstrations with the software used by LNDD.

McLaren: Botre [the panel’s “independent” science advisor] speaks to software versions.

Botre: 167-4?

a: 167-2 change was change for head amplifier, doesn’t affect integration.

YOUNG: objecting — head amplifier was an issues.

BARNETT: not the exact version. This is why we can’t properly do cross.

[ They don’t want to see this demo ]

a: we can load 167-2 if you like?

And so, another recess is called while software can be changed to a different version. When the testimony starts again, the software install is not yet complete. With the panel’s indulgence, Suh asks other questions of Davis as the software installation continues.

Among the exchanges between Suh and Davis was this one, about how well Cynthia Mongongu and Claire Frelat were able to perform IRMS analysis and testing.

q: in your opinion, why was this being done?
a: she was struggling to get the line to fit the way she liked. When I asked what she was doing, she said she was “using her experience”

q: did this change the CIR results?
a: yes, significantly. sometimes so much they gave up and reloaded.

q: what are these?
a: The A(?) block are Frelot’s. She made some setup errors, and reloaded a few times.

q: are these numbers the times they tried to adjust of correct the values to bring within the previous values?
a: I don’t think they were trying to get the numbers; I think they were trying to fit lines and peaks the best they could. Don’t know the motivation. Asked repeatedly what they were doing, and was answered they were using their experience.

q: were the CIRs changing.
a: yes, significant as stated in SOP.

Q: you watched Mongongu and Frelot conduct their procedures.
a: yes.

q: did you see them during retesting?
a: yes.

q: concusion about their ability and competence to operate the instruments.
a: they clearly did not understand the instrument. I had to help them load the software on the machine. They were obviously trying to help each other during the reprocessing and did not generally know how the software worked.

This comes from someone who worked for the manufacturer of the Isoprime, and who was at one time responsible for installing and configuring the machines at customer sites. And it’s surely not the kind of information that USADA’s lawyers are going to be very happy with.

The day’s testimony ends with Suh asking Davis about chromatography and how important it is to the whole process.

q: as part of your experience with isoprime instruments, have you had opportunity and responsibility to review chromatography?
a: yes.

q: does it matter?
a: chromatography is about separating. If you don’t separate, you have wrong results.

Maurice Suh asks a few more questions after this. The main thrust of the direct examination has been to cast doubt on the quality of the work. And that Davis appears to have done quite well. However, they haven’t had a chance to do the software demos, and USADA hasn’t had a chance to cross examine Dr. Davis. Depending on how detailed and thorough their cross is tomorrow, we’ll see if they are able to finish with closing arguments.

I’d like to see everything neatly wrapped up, so that Team Landis doesn’t have to wait even longer to finish their case. Whether the case is completely wrapped up tomorrow, or whether closing arguments will happen at a later date is largely dependent on how long it takes to get through the software demo, the cross examination, and any rebuttal witnesses.

Although Team Landis look to have USADA on the run, when it comes time to render a verdict, anything can happen. Ultimately, the decision is in the hands of the panel members. Let’s hope that they will keep an open mind to the facts and give a fair and just judgment. If that’s the case, then Floyd Landis may have a good shot at winning this round. Overall, today looks to have been a good day for Floyd and Team Landis. But it aint over `til it’s over.