In Malibu CA the Floyd Landis hearing continues on. Days 1-3 appear to be highlighted by technical presentations and arguments concerning the LNDD lab's processing of specimens. Landis supporters enjoyed the missteps on Tuesday with the French interpretor. However a consult with our friend Richard, who is not only an attorney, but an 'executive' in Language Line a huge interpretation firm, says that no one should underestimate the difficulties of working in a courtroom under pressure, interpreting the vagaries of language in the legal setting.
Trust But Verify Coverage here (if you are interested in the Landis hearing, you HAVE to read TBV). Trust But Verify summary:
What seems to be going on is that USADA is trying to:
- Present their theory there is a pattern of doping, with a single metabolite standard.
- Which, as Loren Mooney observed, appear to be around mountain stages. Bonnie DeSimone of ESPN lays that out in more detail.
- Deny, deny, deny production of evidence, and try to make it look like Landis' fault.
- Poke holes in the publicly offered defenses, at some expense of time.
- rebut holes Landis makes in cross as soon as possible.
- which seems to be leading other places.
Landis seems to be:
- Laying traps, some of which are sprung, and some of which are unobserved.
- Establishing processing gaps that may turn out to reflect re-work.
- Suggest that there are calibration and stability problems.
- leading you to think the cal/stab problems might lead to the re-work
- but if they are stability problems, then the re-work isn't reliable either.
- preparing arguments for mass-spectra data later.
Campbell seemed to be:
- Laying ground for declaration that the alternate B samples are in fact AAFs, and their admission should be rejected because they may not be used to create AAFs.
- Catching M. Mongongu in a misstatement of fact by claiming the new IRMS machine went in service after the Stage 17 samples were processed, when there is apparently a report issued the previous year from the new machine. USADA will need to clarify that point at some point.
Cycling News story found here. Cycling News reports Greg Lemond will be called as a witness today. Also note that each side works under a total time limit. It is unknown if 'stoppage time' will be added as with soccer games.
Day three of Floyd Landis' arbitration hearing began with the continuation of testimony from one of the two LNDD analytical chemists that performed the original as well as the retesting of the Landis samples from stage 17 of last year's Tour. Cynthia Mongongu's direct examination by the USADA attorney concluded Tuesday's proceedings and the Landis side had all night to prepare for the cross-examination, likely in an effort to show errors in the processing of the samples and to discredit Ms. Mongongu's work as a technician. Floyd Landis was again sporting a yellow tie, and was noticeably more jovial at times, particularly in the more frustrating moments of the testimony.
Before starting the day, the panel's chair indicated that there is a finite amount of time for each side to examine witnesses. Each side started the hearing with 23 hours of examination and cross-examination time. At the beginning of Wednesday's session, the Landis side has 19.6 hours remaining and USADA had 16.7 hours. However, that will obviously change after today's all-Landis cross-examination of Ms. Mongongu.
The witness list only changes slightly, with Floyd Landis added as a possible witness for his side. He was already on the list for the USADA side. Other names of note are Greg Lemond for USADA. Richard Young noted that Lemond will definitely testify tomorrow, even if the testimony of Dr. Ayotte needs to be interrupted to fit with his travel schedule..
The witnesses likely to be called by USADA next (in order):
Claire Frelat
LNDD Analytical ChemistChristiane Ayotte, PhD
Professor. Director Montreal WADA Accredited LaboratoryGreg Lemond
Three-time Tour de France winnerEsther Cerpolini
LNDD Analytical ChemistRuddy Barlagne
LNDD Analytical Chemist
It appears to us that many overlook the fact that this hearing,, this proceeding turns a sporting event into a forensic contest. That one of the reasons sports provided relief from the ridiculous absurd events of everyday life was that the contest was decided between the lines, on the field, on the race course. That fair competition between contestants provided exhilarated fans thrills of the moment.
Now, the outcome of a race apparently won't be decided for months (?years) and in the adversarial atmosphere of a courtroom, with aggressive lawyers, procedural points, and bumbling French interpretors.
The cycling world looks with hostility at the USADA anti-doping officials. Do they stop to think why anti-doping bureaucracies grew? Because cycling races were decided by chemists, and hematologists and cheating trainers. Because young cyclists were dropping over dead like citizens of Glendale Meadows Nursing Homes, only secondary to doping complications not old age.
Irregardless of whomever 'wins' this hearing, everyone loses.
Ummm....what the hell does Greg LeMond know about this case. He has opinions, but no facts regarding the specifics of this case. He wasn't there. He doesn't work in the lab or for USADA or WADA. This is grandstanding - What a waste of time.
Posted by: Tim | 05/17/2007 at 07:37