[swimyouidiot]

Sorry to all of you who wish this whole topic was closed, but here goes...

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.

Peace

This post has been edited by swimyouidiot: 06 August 2008 - 02:11 PM

[sundaymorning]

Swim, that's not the complete mass spec data. It's only the data for the relevant peaks. As we discussed last year, the fact that this info was available to Floyd's team was made clear at the AAA hearing by Shanzer, WMA and maybe others. Davis testified that in the software you click a peak and the mass spec data for that peak is revealed. One of the techs confirmed that in her CAS testimony. Floyd's team did make this an issue. There was an argument put forth by WMA about contamination by a small, partially absorbed peaked.

This post has been edited by sundaymorning: 05 August 2008 - 08:40 PM

[Kiwi]

Sorry to all of you who wish this whole topic was closed, but here goes...

Perhaps, with the revelations of last year and month and the possibility that there may have been two types of undetectable EPO available in 2006, there'll be renewed interest in Landis' blood parameters, rest day wattage, AdH climb etc...

[sundaymorning]

Perhaps, with the revelations of last year and month and the possibility that there may have been two types of undetectable EPO available in 2006, there'll be renewed interest in Landis' blood parameters, rest day wattage, AdH climb etc...

Can you imagine what would have happened if someone had pulled that crap at this year's Tour?

[Kiwi]

Can you imagine what would have happened if someone had pulled that crap at this year's Tour?

Indeed, what would we have made of Landis doing AdH in 38'36" and 5.7 w/kg (his 2006 figures), beating Sastre by nearly a minute (39'30", 5.5 w/kg).

We probably would've said 'no way' (but I'm not so sure).

Needless to say, with his blood profile, he would've certainly been the subject of some Ricco-esque attention from the testers.

[dbrower]

Indeed, what would we have made of Landis doing AdH in 38'36" and 5.7 w/kg (his 2006 figures), beating Sastre by nearly a minute (39'30", 5.5 w/kg).

Note that in 2006, Sastre climbed it faster than this year, in 39:04, I think. 2006 seemed to have faster conditions of less unfavorable wind at the top.

-dB

[sundaymorning]

Indeed, what would we have made of Landis doing AdH in 38'36" and 5.7 w/kg (his 2006 figures), beating Sastre by nearly a minute (39'30", 5.5 w/kg).

We probably would've said 'no way' (but I'm not so sure).

Needless to say, with his blood profile, he would've certainly been the subject of some Ricco-esque attention from the testers.

I meant his stage 17 exploit. If a rider had pulled a stunt like that on the Alpe D'Huez stage of this year's Tour he would have been immediately treated as a joke, with good reason.

[swimyouidiot]

Swim, that's not the complete mass spec data. It's only the data for the relevant peaks. As we discussed last year, the fact that this info was available to Floyd's team was made clear at the AAA hearing by Shanzer, WMA and maybe others. Davis testified that in the software you click a peak and the mass spec data for that peak is revealed. One of the techs confirmed that in her CAS testimony. Floyd's team did make this an issue. There was an argument put forth by WMA about contamination by a small, partially absorbed peaked.

SM, yes, there was some testimony that made us think this info was available to Floyd's team, but the information in LNDD 0333 and following is newly public.

And yes, this is only the mass spec data for the peaks of interest, not "complete" over the whole time span. I'm not sure what use that would be. But this is "complete" for the peaks of interest, and we didn't have it before. If I understand right this is the information that matters. Before, we only knew that the target ions from 5bA (for example) were present in that peak, but we didn't know what other ions may have been present in the peak. Now we also know that all the ions in the peak are consistent with 5bA (for example) and not some other substance.

About WMA's argument: I don't think LNDD 0333 and following disallows his argument. Wasn't he making a "hypothetical" argument at that point that if a substance had a very negative CIR (like if something wasn't fully combusted) it could distort the numbers, even if the absolute about was so small as to be hidden in the mass spec scan? Was that it? He wasn't saying that that is what happened, he was just saying that the evidence did not disprove it.

Anyway, it certainly was not an argument that Landis' team put any weight on.

Peace

[Kiwi]

Note that in 2006, Sastre climbed it faster than this year, in 39:04, I think. 2006 seemed to have faster conditions of less unfavorable wind at the top.

-dB

39'01" in 2006, according to Cyclismag. I missed that in their article, so cheers for pointing it out. Quite a ride.

Sastre ne semble pas fatiguer après plusieurs ascensions. Indeed.

Historically, Sastre's and Landis's climb times are exceptional.

[one-mint-julich]

And yes, this is only the mass spec data for the peaks of interest, not "complete" over the whole time span. I'm not sure what use that would be. But this is "complete" for the peaks of interest, and we didn't have it before. If I understand right this is the information that matters. Before, we only knew that the target ions from 5bA (for example) were present in that peak, but we didn't know what other ions may have been present in the peak. Now we also know that all the ions in the peak are consistent with 5bA (for example) and not some other substance.

About WMA's argument: I don't think LNDD 0333 and following disallows his argument. Wasn't he making a "hypothetical" argument at that point that if a substance had a very negative CIR (like if something wasn't fully combusted) it could distort the numbers, even if the absolute about was so small as to be hidden in the mass spec scan? Was that it? He wasn't saying that that is what happened, he was just saying that the evidence did not disprove it.

Thanks for this, Swim. What you say here sounds correct. I haven't looked at the link, but if these peaks are pure, it surely does rebut what I and some others felt was a significant weakness in the case against Floyd.