Arbitrator Brunet's Track Record on "Botttle Movers"

Will wrote:

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".

Wayne wrote:

<quoted text>
The arbitration panel will decide if the two technicians were part of the A and B analysis........and labeling them " bottle movers " at this point is just an attempt to muddy the waters.
It wouldn't surprise me if the arbs clear Floyd on one or more technicalities...there are so many to choose from
---Wayne---

Wayne wrote:

<quoted text>...It wouldn't surprise me if the arbs clear Floyd on one or more technicalities...there are so many to choose from
---Wayne---

Will wrote:

<quoted text>
Landis lacks legally sufficient evidence to meet his burden of proof or to overcome UCI's "Anti-technicality Rules" (Articles 18 & 19).

Ghost of Ali wrote:

On the down side, our friend Will (the ... er, whatever ?)

Will wrote:

Arbitrator Brunet's Track Record on "Bottle Movers"

Ricky Rider wrote:

<quoted text>
Willie: Future Barista, he'll be passing the "bar" every day!

Will wrote:

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.