Arbitrator Brunet's Track Record on "Botttle Movers"

The presiding arbitrator in the Landis case, Patrice M. Brunet, was also part of the arbitration panel that heard and decided the case of USADA v. Tammy Thomas, AAA No. 30-190-00505-02 (award dated 6 September, 2002). As in the Landis case, the Thomas case also involved an allegation by the athlete that there had been "dual involvement of analysts" by the lab. Here from pages 8-9 of the Thomas case is how the panel decided the issue involving mere "bottle movers":

"Another issue was raised by [the Athlete] involving the "B" sample test. Citing Article 5.6 of the Olympic Movement Anti-Doping Code:'If the analysis of the 'B' sample is carried out by the same laboratory that analyzed the 'A' sample, the laboratory personnel who carry out the analysis of the 'B' sample must be entirely different....'

Dr. Catlin testified that the people who were noted by Respondent in the records of both the A and B sample testing procedures were acting as mere bottle movers of the sealed samples. They were not "carrying out the analysis of the B sample". Further, USADA protocol Section 8.b. provide for the athlete's presence when the 'B' sample is both opened and analyzed. In the instant case Respondent chose not to attend either the opening or analysis of the 'B' sample .... The Panel has thoroughly reviewed the exhibits received along with the testimony of the experts. It is the conclusion of the Panel that the UCLA Lab has followed the prescribed standards...[and] that [USADA] has proven [a doping violation]."

In the Landis case,'Code operateur' 18 Cerpolini acted merely as a "bottle mover" of Landis' sealed frozen B sample and there is simply no evidence to suggest otherwise; regardless of her role in analyzing SOME of Landis' A sample T/E ratio tests, she did not carry out ANY of the analysis of the B sample.[see UDADA 0251, 0254, 0256, 0257].

The other consideration that the Patrice Brunet arbitration panel in Thomas found to be decisive is the fact that the athlete in Thomas had the opportunity to attend and to observe the B sample opening and analysis. Of course, Landis DID take advantage of the opportunity to have his legal representatives and a lab expert present to observe his B sample opening and analysis; unfortunately for Landis, although his representatives "received the full documentation package ...of sample A...at the beginning of the procedure of counter-analysis of the corresponding B sample" [see USADA 0250], the reps made no objection that the analysts identified in the A sample documents were conducting any B sample analyses -- IN FACT, Landis' lab expert Dr. de Boer even complimented the Chatenay Lab analysts as operating in a TRANSPARENT and PROFESSIONAL manner![see USADA 0368].

Dr. de Boer himself formerly ran a WADA-approved lab. He knows the ropes and he knows what to look out for. The fact that de Boer did not raise any objection of "dual analyst involvement", and actually complimented the Chatenay Lab personnel on their transparency and professionalism, confirms the obvious -- that there is no legitimate Landaluce-style "dual analyst involvement" technicality for Landis to hide behind.

Mark my words: no hearing on May 14. Over and out.

Will wrote:

In the Landis case,'Code operateur' 18 Cerpolini acted merely as a "bottle mover" of Landis' sealed frozen B sample and there is simply no evidence to suggest otherwise; regardless of her role in analyzing SOME of Landis' A sample T/E ratio tests, she did not carry out ANY of the analysis of the B sample.[see UDADA 0251, 0254, 0256, 0257].

1. As I recall, there were TWO operators who were involvrd in the A and B analysis; why do you only discuss ONE?

2. How do you know to what extent the same operators were involved in the A and B ??? Isn't that something the arbs will decide?

( PS...welcome back Will....glad to see you are contributing something of substance to this forum...even though I seldom if ever agree with you...)

---Wayne---

nevrflw wrote:

Mark my words: no hearing on May 14. Over and out.

I'm inclined to agree that no hearing MAY take place on May 14...but if it doesn't, it will only be because of Landis' dilatory efforts.

Wayne wrote:

<quoted text>
1. As I recall, there were TWO operators who were involvrd in the A and B analysis; why do you only discuss ONE?
2. How do you know to what extent the same operators were involved in the A and B ??? Isn't that something the arbs will decide?
( PS...welcome back Will....glad to see you are contributing something of substance to this forum...even though I seldom if ever agree with you...)
---Wayne---

1) I only addressed the "bottle mover" aspect because it was the only one relevant to the "dual analyst involvement" issue raised in the Tammy Thomas case. I've previously addressed Ms. Mongongu's role as a verifier of B sample test results, which is expressly permitted of an A sample analyst under the WADA rule.

2) The arbitrators can't decide "arbitrarily" -- their final decision, as well as their interim decisions to order certain discovery, must have a reasonable basis in FACT. There is nothing beyond SPECULATION upon which to base even a discovery decision regarding the purported extent of "dual analyst involvement"; I would certainly be disappointed if these arbitrators allowed even more of a discovery fishing expedition based upon speculation which would only delay the May 14 hearing date.

(Your P.S. is so noted and back at ya.)

nevrflw wrote:

Mark my words: no hearing on May 14. Over and out.

I haven't heard anything.....What's up now?

Do you have a hyperlink??

---Wayne---

Will wrote:

There is nothing beyond SPECULATION upon which to base even a discovery decision regarding the purported extent of "dual analyst involvement"; I would certainly be disappointed if these arbitrators allowed even more of a discovery fishing expedition based upon speculation which would only delay the May 14 hearing date.

Ever the Philadelphia Lawyer.........and you don't even reside in Philadelphia !!

---Wayne---

LOL...SMILE when you say that!

Will wrote:

<quoted text>
1) I only addressed the "bottle mover" aspect because it was the only one relevant to the "dual analyst involvement" issue raised in the Tammy Thomas case. I've previously addressed Ms. Mongongu's role as a verifier of B sample test results, which is expressly permitted of an A sample analyst under the WADA rule.
2) The arbitrators can't decide "arbitrarily" -- their final decision, as well as their interim decisions to order certain discovery, must have a reasonable basis in FACT. There is nothing beyond SPECULATION upon which to base even a discovery decision regarding the purported extent of "dual analyst involvement"; I would certainly be disappointed if these arbitrators allowed even more of a discovery fishing expedition based upon speculation which would only delay the May 14 hearing date.
(Your P.S. is so noted and back at ya.)

I don't believe you've previously addressed the nature of actual involvement of either of the two LNDD employees in question (even though you have been queried on this very point). You've simply stated their respective titles as they appeared in the documentation and indulged in a bit of speculation on what they might mean. Also, considering that the Landis camp is still unable to solicit a response from LNDD on this very point, I doubt very much if you would be privy to such information. However, If you are, then please tell ...

You wanting it to be true, doesn't make it so, I'm afraid. Always the chancer.

Wayne wrote: 1. As I recall, there were TWO operators who were involvrd in the A and B analysis; why do you only discuss ONE?
2. How do you know to what extent the same operators were involved in the A and B ??? Isn't that something the arbs will decide?"

Well Will, are you willing to answer the questions

Ghost of Ali wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't believe you've previously addressed the nature of actual involvement of either of the two LNDD employees in question (even though you have been queried on this very point). You've simply stated their respective titles as they appeared in the documentation and indulged in a bit of speculation on what they might mean.

.

I think Will is very good at disinformation techniques..........such as inventing some imaginative new wording to support his hidden agenda.

" Bottle movers" suggests that the employees were not involved in the analysis of the B sample in any meaningful way.........but, of course, only Will knows what a " bottle mover" is. Sorta like his previous blather
on " forensic correction ".

---Wayne---

Wayne wrote:

<quoted text>
I think Will is very good at disinformation techniques..........such as inventing some imaginative new wording to support his hidden agenda.
" Bottle movers" suggests that the employees were not involved in the analysis of the B sample in any meaningful way.........but, of course, only Will knows what a " bottle mover" is. Sorta like his previous blather
on " forensic correction ".
---Wayne---

...you gotta love his TrIple TTT in the word BOTTLE,bit of a take off from the Scottish way of saying...''GRRREAT!''

Well, let's think a minute: given a French organisation, with whatever bureaucratic hierarchy that may entail...

There's going to be:
a- a known-liar as DIRECTOR (Let's IGNORE the FR Minister of Sport and his Anti-Doping team);
b- Lab 'supervisors' who don't get their hands dirty, and are quite possibly on vacation in July;
c- Lab 'techies' or 'researchers' who will do the 'dirty work';
d- Lab 'assistants' who may do much of the preparatory and post-analysis 'work'(washing urine-filled bottles? or taking out such trash?);
e-(FR)'Stagiares'(interns), who are summer-staff from the best Universities of medicine, biology or endocrinology (? or?);
f- Never mind the 'administrative staff', in HR, Accounting, and (cough) Press Relations;
g- The maintenance crew: janitors, maids, maintenance staff.

Thus we could presume, that wILL is discussing, as 'bottle movers', someone on the levels d, e or f???

Certainly the WADA CODE (or ISL) doesn't define 'Bottle movers'... so the question (and issue) remains ambiguous to me.

As much as we must abide by wILL's favorite bromide, taken from the CODE, that 'it is presumed that a WADA-Approved Lab is working within the ISL and IST, etc', so must we presume that the personnel that were present and signed for Sample A testing, and Sample B confirmation, who were 'not involved' in the 'TESTING', were not involved?!

Why do all the presumptions favor the Lab, and disfavor the Athlete?

Call it an unequal playing field, I do.

ZENback

Wayne wrote:

<quoted text>
I think Will is very good at disinformation techniques..........such as inventing some imaginative new wording to support his hidden agenda.
" Bottle movers" suggests that the employees were not involved in the analysis of the B sample in any meaningful way.........but, of course, only Will knows what a " bottle mover" is. Sorta like his previous blather on " forensic correction ".
---Wayne---

Nice try, Wayne, but you are the one employing the "disinformation technique".

The term "bottle movers" was not invented by me -- it came from page 8 of the AAA case of USADA v. Tammy Thomas:

http://www.usantidoping.org/files/active/arbi...

Wayne wrote:

<quoted text>
I think Will is very good at disinformation techniques..........such as inventing some imaginative new wording to support his hidden agenda.
" Bottle movers" suggests that the employees were not involved in the analysis of the B sample in any meaningful way.........but, of course, only Will knows what a " bottle mover" is. Sorta like his previous blather
on " forensic correction ".
---Wayne---

He is (quite) good at disinformation and that's what makes him so entertaining. It's sort of like a verbal video game, where you have to jump on the bulls**t before it jumps on you.

However, to date, no firm statements have been made by LNDD on the respective involvement of their employees in the A and B sample tests (apart from the fact that the same names appear in both reports !)

Will wrote:

<quoted text>

The term "bottle movers" was not invented by me -- it came from page 8 of the AAA case of USADA v. Tammy Thomas:
http://www.usantidoping.org/files/active/arbi...

...So you are just parroting some AAA case? Guess I gave you too much credit for original thought.

---Wayne---

"ZENmud wrote: d- Lab 'assistants' who may do much of the preparatory and post-analysis 'work'(washing urine-filled bottles? or taking out such trash?);
e-(FR)'Stagiares'(interns), who are summer-staff from the best Universities of medicine, biology or endocrinology (? or?);"

That would be assuming that the "assistants" and or the "interns" were qualified for those jobs/duties.

Could they have been French high school level students working there during summer break?

I already realize that there is a difference between the school systems within Europe and the US.

Arbitrator Brunet's Track Record on "Bottle Movers"

Let me repeat that: Arbitrator Brunet's Track Record on "Bottle Movers"

The whistling is nonstop -- yet, it can't drown out the fact that Landis presiding arbitrator Brunet is on record as refusing to invalidate an athlete's doping results on the technicality that mere bottle movers constitute "dual analyst involvement".