US cycling legend LeMond to appear as witness against Landis



nosduh

New Member
Aug 7, 2006
65
0
0
davidbod said:
Does LeMonde have Mental issues?
Lets see, case 1, LeMonde gets a call from Armstrong asking why he is trashing him in the media. LeMonde then claims Armstrong admitted to doping. Why in the world even if he was a doper would Armstrong admit to that to a man who is trashing him in the media.

Fast forward to case2, LeMonde gets a call from Landis asking why he is trashing him in the media. Lets see, I'll admit to doping to him since that seemed to have worked out so well for Armstrong.... Not. LeMonde again claims said person admits to doping while on the phone.

Doesn't anyone see a pattern here.
It is interesting. Lemond got what he wanted though. His face is in the news. Hopefully this will be good for the case though. Hopefully some people will stick around to look past the Lemond issue and read about all the mistakes LNDD made.
 

poulidor

New Member
Jul 31, 2006
1,464
0
0
nosduh said:
It is interesting. Lemond got what he wanted though. His face is in the news. Hopefully this will be good for the case though. Hopefully some people will stick around to look past the Lemond issue and read about all the mistakes LNDD made.
I think you have not understood all the facts. If the facts against Landis' friend are clear, lab 's errors are not as stated clearly Ayotte.
Stopping a process testing and so are normal, you could easily learn this in a manual book of one of the equipement providers.
To make some "errors" as said the second witnesse and then fix it, it's normal too. What about, if after a such error and no possibility to fix it, result would give an athlete guilty ?
LNDD chain of custody was satisfying all point required by WADA.

So all your allegations are false and unfounded. You can only say the system is flawed and unfair against a clear and honest rider.
 

micron

New Member
Jun 19, 2003
598
2
0
Nosduh, you were clealry watching another Ayotte and not the one who was cool, calm, credible and made Jacobs look second rate. She held up brilliantly and refused to be bamboozled - she also testified that she had easily been able to trace the chain of custody from the documents she had (why couldn't Landis's million dollar lawyers?). She also repeatedly corrected Jacobs deliberate misinterpretations of her testimony. Oh and the 'vulgariser' gaffe was quite priceless.
 

JohnO

New Member
Jul 5, 2003
1,495
0
0
whiteboytrash said:

In and around all of this funny business LNDD along with USADA proved that there was NO deletion of testing results, all tests were conducted on anonymous samples (ie they didn’t know they were Landis’s samples) and that different testers were used for the A & B samples. All of these points were key in Landis’s defense strategy and were blown out of the water by USADA.

Landis is a loser.


Not quite. Buried in the tawdry Lemond stuff, was a real jewel - an exchange between attorney Suh and Cynthia Mongongu, regarding the CIR test that is the basis of the doping charge. From the LA Times' coverage of the hearing:

The test involves an instrument that analyzes the constitution of more than a dozen chemical samples, including eight control samples designed to verify the equipment's accuracy. The test is designed to be automated, so that all the steps take place sequentially over a period of about seven hours without any intervention by an operator.

The tests on Landis' Stage 17 samples, however, each appear to have included an unexplained gap of about five hours between two of the steps.

"Tell me what happened here," Suh said to Mongongu, referring to one of the gaps.

She said "there was a problem," and that she had to implement one of the steps manually. Although such a departure from routine normally requires written documentation under WADA rules, Mongongu acknowledged that she made no note of the problem at the time.

Mongongu acknowledged that at several points during the April retests, she intervened manually in the test sequence because the instrument had produced a result that was "undoubtedly not correct." She did not document her action at the time, she acknowledged.

The incorrect or unacceptable results being produced by the machine tended to involve calibrations or verification runs, rather than readings on Landis' samples. But the defense may be intending to argue that the inadequacy of the machine casts doubt on Landis' results.

Mongongu's testimony suggested that the performance of the machine had been erratic for years; under questioning by Howard Jacobs, another lawyer for Landis, she said that she had had to summon a manufacturer's technician roughly 10 times since September 2003 to repair the hardware.

Records of the retesting in April indicated numerous similar gaps in documentation, some of them covering periods of more than an hour. Mongongu testified she could not recall the reason for the gaps.

Mongongu had defended her technique Tuesday under direct questioning by a USADA attorney. On Wednesday, however, she acknowledged that she had failed to document several steps in her analysis of Landis' Stage 17 sample, including where and when she acquired the sample vial and when she passed it on to the next technician in line.

Keep in mind that this is the CIR test, so Mongongu knew who the subject was, and she knew how high the stakes were - bringing down the winner of the TDF. Yet, she failed to document trouble with the CIR machine, in violation of WADA rules, and, given the gravity of the situation, in violation of just plain common sense. This seems to have been verified by the B sample retests, where similar trouble was encountered. And it is curious that she can remember in detail what the trouble was almost a year ago, yet can't remember what the trouble was less than a month ago.

This doesn't mean that Landis is innocent. It does mean that a balky CIR machine and an airheaded operator might get him off, as they are at the center of the accusation.
 

nosduh

New Member
Aug 7, 2006
65
0
0
micron said:
Nosduh, you were clealry watching another Ayotte and not the one who was cool, calm, credible and made Jacobs look second rate. She held up brilliantly and refused to be bamboozled - she also testified that she had easily been able to trace the chain of custody from the documents she had (why couldn't Landis's million dollar lawyers?). She also repeatedly corrected Jacobs deliberate misinterpretations of her testimony. Oh and the 'vulgariser' gaffe was quite priceless.
I agree with you that she was calm and cool. I did like their humorous banter especially when she asked him how much he was making.

However, her saying she could trace the chain of custody when the actual technicians couldn't even do it is questionable.

BTW, have you ever been deposed? Lawyers will INTENTIONALLY mistate things in order to see if the witness will correct them. Trust me, he is not stupid and he did not make a mistake. In a deposition they ask you 100 questions. 90 of them are garbage and 10 of them are the same important question phrased 10 different ways.

I still think the most amazing thing is that she testified that she would NOT say anying bad about WADA even if she observed errors.
 

whiteboytrash

New Member
Mar 9, 2005
5,402
0
0
not to worry everything has been worked out... beer causes positive tests for testosterone and also also causes you to abuse someone for their child abuse...

In a press release, Will Geoghegan, who until yesterday served as Landis's business manger, said, "I apologize to Greg LeMond and his family for the distress I caused by my call. I also apologize to the arbitration panel and to Floyd Landis and his legal team for the distraction. I have been very angry about how unfair this whole proceeding is to Floyd, a great friend and a greater champion, and stupidly tried to take out my anger on Greg. I acted on my own, impulsively, after a beer or two. I never thought about keeping Greg from testifying. If I had, I would have concluded that since Greg is such a fierce competitor my stunt would likely make him more resolved to testify. What I did was wrong and very unfair to Greg. I am very sorry about and embarrassed by my conduct."
 

poulidor

New Member
Jul 31, 2006
1,464
0
0
whiteboytrash said:
I have been very angry about how unfair this whole proceeding is to Floyd, a great friend and a greater champion, and stupidly tried to take out my anger on Greg. I acted on my own, impulsively, after a beer or two. I never thought about keeping Greg from testifying. If I had, I would have concluded that since Greg is such a fierce competitor my stunt would likely make him more resolved to testify. What I did was wrong and very unfair to Greg. I am very sorry about and embarrassed by my conduct."
Maybe, he bonked tomorrow, take 2 beers and I bet he would be find positive by cops testing for T !!!
And new game with the Wild Fair Fund
 

kennf

New Member
Jan 29, 2004
609
0
0
Whatever became of the story about the lab's computer system being hacked? Maybe that was another Geoghegan job, after he drank one or two beers, of course.
 

Trev_S

New Member
Jan 24, 2004
479
0
0
nosduh said:
Does anyone honestly think that a lab tech who processes 5-20 test a day is really going to have specific memory about where she got the bottle from, etc. on just another test? I mean she has done probably 400 - 1000 tests between then and now. She CLEARLY remembers that ONE!? Hogwash. If my job is to do something that is repetitive day after day after day. I do NOT remember one specific instance from 8 months ago. UNLESS!! Unless it was not just another sample. Unless I knew it was different. They already testified they knew who the B sample was for, it is pretty clear they are either lying about their recollection or there was some reason they remember it so clearly.
One little hiccup.
Lets say your doing a job, your trying to find a red ball thats in a bag of yellow balls. You put your hand in the bag and pull out one ball, test the colour, yep it's yellow. You keep doing this until you find a red ball. 100 yellow balls later you finally find a red one. Then carry on.
At the end of the day which ball out of all of them do you remember?
A safe bet it's the red on. The one that is different, you'll remember everything about it.

So back to the lab test.
Out of all the tests done in within the time frame, there was that one positive result (that we know of at least). Which test process will be remembered the most? The one that is different.
By the time the 'B' sample was tested shortly after, as we know the lab techs ended up knowing who's it was. Pretty easy when Landis's representatives where to view the testing of that 'B' sample.

So you see, it was different, hence the reason it is easy to remember.
Just as you described yourself.
You contradicted yourself :p
 

Bro Deal

New Member
Jun 26, 2006
6,698
4
0
Some funny **** if you missed it.

"[size=-1]Now, I have a powerful thirst myself. But I can't imagine how many pints of tonsil polish I'd have to gargle before ringing up a retired Tour champ to mutter darkly about weenies. No wonder Eddy Merckx is giving this one a miss. A Belgian in the mood to talk about dicks can always bring up Frank Vandenbroucke and save himself the transatlantic airfare."

[/size]
http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/12283.0.html
 

Similar threads