For anyone who can still stand this level of detail:
One of the big issues in the Landis case from way back in the fall of 2006 was the disturbing fact that the original Lab Documentation Packet did not contain an important set of data needed to support the veracity of the Adverse Analytical Finding. A necesssary (but not sufficient) piece of information was the "complete mass spec. data" from the GC/MS part of the IRMS test. This data is necessary to show that the peaks that were being measured in the IRMS test were "pure," that is, that they contained only 5aA or 5bA, etc. Without this information, it was always possible that some other substance in Landis' system (like the steroids he was taking for his hip) was mixed in with the target substance, and was distorting the CIR measurements, as I argued repeatedly here (much to the dismay of some).
At the first hearing last year, USADA entered "Exhibit 26" as evidence. For some unknown reason, this exhibit was not made public following that hearing. But "Exhibit 26" was made public last month following the CAS hearing. Exhibit 26 is here. But it's over 500 pdf pages so click at your own risk. EDIT: Here are just the pages with the mass spec data from Ex. 26.
It contains over 500 pages of documentation from LNDD, much of it highly insignificant, but as it turns out, the complete mass spec(trometer) data from the GC/MS portion of the IRMS test is there. It begins at LNDD 0333-0345 (or so), and starts at pdf page 340 or so. It appears that this complete mass spec data does show that the peaks of interest contain the target substances, and only the target substances.
(This does not settle the "peak identification" issue, by the way.)
Of course, when it comes to anything LNDD does, I am skeptical of the evidence. For example, there is no "time and date stamp" on these documents, and this format is clearly not original. These charts really could have been run at any time on any sample. Like other things, the original ones and zeros must have been erased on that infamous hard drive.
But, cynical paranoia aside, for what it's worth, it appears we now have the complete mass spec data for the peaks of interest, and it seems the data supports USADA's case.
This was never an argument put forward by Landis' defense team or his witnesses, so this doesn't really change anything about his argument, but it was much discussed here, and people as smart and diverse as OMJ and duckstrap both said this information was important, so I thought it was worth noting.
This post has been edited by swimyouidiot: 06 August 2008 - 02:11 PM