Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

I'm shocked
Quote | Reply
From www.cyclingnews.com:

"Next, Mr. Suh turned to Ms. Frelat's stage 17 B sample analysis:

Suh: You said you were involved in the testing of the blank and the actual sample?
Frelat:
Yes.

Suh: When you did the first analysis, did you use the OS2 automatic background subtraction feature?
Frelat:
When the report was drawn up I would always verify the estimate of the background noise and the integration of the peaks?
Suh: And you would do that manually?
Frelat:
Yes.
Suh: You are choosing where the peaks begin and where they end?
Frelat:
Yes.
Suh: Your SOP says you have exercise care in picking where the peaks begin and end because it can have a dramatic impact on the isotopic value of the results?
Frelat:
Yes, it is written that we must be very careful but not that it will have dramatic consequences or that it will affect the results in a dramatic way. It is written that it could have a significant change in the results.
Suh: What do you believe is a significant difference in carbon isotope testing for your final per mil value?
Frelat:
A difference of 1.5 or 1.6 per mil.
Suh: You are aware that LNDD would report an adverse analytic finding (AAF) whenever there is a greater than negative 3 per mil difference?
Frelat:
Yes.
Suh: So 1.5 or 1.6 is half of that? Can you point to a SOP where it defines a significant difference as 1.5 of 1.6?
Frelat: It is not written, my answer was concerning my opinion.
Suh: Of course, you were trying to do your very best job?
Frelat:
Yes.
Suh: You are saying that the ones that are close, are close enough?
Frelat:
Yes.
Suh: Are you saying those pages document your choices of where the peaks are for the stage 17 analysis?
Frelat:
This is the report of the results which I have found.
Suh: Is there a report of how you came to that conclusion of where the peaks begin and where they end?
Frelat:
We do not print any reports that show the 44/45 trace. We only have the final report after we have done the work and the chromatogram with the highest ion.
Suh: For stage 17, did you use manual subtraction?
Frelat:
Yes, I just said that."

So if I understand Frelat's testimony correctly, there is no permanent record of how the integration was performed to arrive at the final 13C/12C ratio???

Last edited by: Andrew Coggan: May 18, 07 14:10
Quote Reply
Re: I'm shocked [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Floyd has a case, despite the whole LeMond distraction. He may have done it, he may not have, but based on the transcripts I've read, I not sure that the LNDD is in a position to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt (not that the bar is that high in this case, anyway)
Quote Reply
Re: I'm shocked [JohnA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Makes one wish they could just stick to the facts and the science rather than all this hearsay bs. What is the exculpatory evidence rule for arbitrations?
Quote Reply
Re: I'm shocked [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Wow. That's all I can say....wow.
Quote Reply
Re: I'm shocked [TriMike] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Makes one wish they could just stick to the facts and the science rather than all this hearsay bs. What is the exculpatory evidence rule for arbitrations?
What? Screw you...I am calling Paris Hilton to see what she thinks.

----------------------------------------------------------

What if the Hokey Pokey is what it is all about?
Quote Reply
Re: I'm shocked [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Please put this in context for us non-science geeks. As I read this snippet, the witness believes 1.5 to 1.6 is close enough for this job. What level of accuracy is achievable? To the nearest .1? If so, is it commercially reasonable to hold him to .1?
Quote Reply
Re: I'm shocked [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
It looks like (from this short snip) that the chromatagraph may be doing the estimate of background noise and peak integration but that she is manually verifying that estimate is within acceptable levels. There is a level of papertrail that becomes so unweildy and cumbersome that it becomes counterproductive. I don't know if that verification falls within the excessive paper category but this looks like pretty standard defense technique to me. He's fishing with the first few questions to see if she's on her material. He throws out a fact of his own and simply asks her if she is aware of it which makes him appear knowledgeable then he asks for more paper than the lab has.

Looks to me like Frelat was holding her own quite well and is very familiar with her test. She points out a minor difference in wording between a question and her lab's SOP (significant vs. dramatic) as well as adhering to roughly double the required stringency for and AAF on the machine.

Yes, I'm shocked as well.
Quote Reply
Re: I'm shocked [Record10Carbon] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Ops....you forgot......she doesn't think..........she has "people" to do that for her : )

.
.
Paul
Quote Reply
Re: I'm shocked [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I don't see the problem.

Mass spec is the technique used here, and good scientists (usually) never trust computers to pick their peaks for them, as they can never be as discerning as the human eye.


-cj
Last edited by: transition: May 18, 07 16:52
Quote Reply
Re: I'm shocked [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Suh: So 1.5 or 1.6 is half of that? Can you point to a SOP where it defines a significant difference as 1.5 of 1.6?
Frelat: It is not written, my answer was concerning my opinion.

Problem #1: NO SOP!? I am floored. How can they expect such analyses to stand up in a court of law? With a case of this magnitude, the testing facility should, at the very least, be operating under SOPs and methods that have been validated according to appropriate guidelines. The interpretation of the sample chromatograms is an entirely different issue.

Quote Reply
Re: I'm shocked [Cort Cramer] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Yeah...I'm pretty sure she's saying that the SOP doesn't define what constitutes significant.........
Quote Reply
Re: I'm shocked [Cort Cramer] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
so, um... did he like do it? Or not???
Quote Reply
Re: I'm shocked [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
it is really like the o.j. simpson affair. many (white) people have a very hard time understanding that his court trial was never about his innocence or guilt. it didn't take a rocket scientist to see that o.j. was no angel.

but the trial was all about what kind of corrupt, racist, and incompetent f*ck-ups certain members of the L.A.P.D. are/were.


and, no doubt, a guilty floyd may get off on the same basis.





Where would you want to swim ?
Quote Reply
Re: I'm shocked [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
From my interpretation of the transcript is that Frelat, from her experience, determined that 1.3 was an discernable peak value. But the sop states a peak must be determined at a value of 3. So, she was making up a procedure and not following the written standards. So, to me, it sounds like she was not following the standard guidelines for this test.



Las Vegas NV | IM KY 07
Quote Reply
Re: I'm shocked [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
rough translation of what transpired:
"Here is Floyd's sample. Go find a positive result. Keep trying until you succeed."
Quote Reply
Re: I'm shocked [transition] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
I don't see the problem.

Mass spec is the technique used here, and good scientists (usually) never trust computers to pick their peaks for them, as they can never be as discerning as the human eye.
The problem that I see - at least for the Landis defense team - is that you can't attack Frelat's job of manual integration is that there's apparently no permanent record of, e.g., where the limits were set, whether she relied on a tangent skim or a baseline drop, etc.
Quote Reply