3. summon 68 [LNDD 705] identifies the retention times on F3. The peak at 1265.6 is ignored. Peaks at 1329.1 and 1359.1 appear to be identified as 5b and 5a respectively.4. This is very convincing evidence that the peaks are mis-identified. Notice that if the F3 peaks at 1265.6 and 1329.1 are the real 5b and 5a peaks respectively the retention time more closely matches the cal-acetate than does the F3 peaks LNDD appears to call 5b and 5a at 1329 and 1359. Also sight the similarity in the difference between the 5b and 5a peaks. Thus if these observations are correct and bear on to all samples this is very convincing evidence that Landis is truly innocent. This observation is consistent with your earlier overlays related to the Retention Times discussions and my graphs from yesterday.
What an idiot! Excuse my French!!!This guy claims to read chromatographs for a living?I'm a lawyer and can express he made a big mistake. There was no switching of peaks.1. These results are for one of the other stages not the stage 17.2. The Cal Mix Acetate contains the IS and 3 metabolites. 11 ketio etio and the 5B one each for the 3 sample fractions F1. F2. F3. 3. The Cal Mix 1319 rt is the 5B for F3 and the 1246.9 is the etio for F2. NOT THE 5B OR 5A.4. So for the F3 fraction the 5B is at 1329 rt for the Landis sample. 1330 rt for the blank urine and 1319 rt for the Cal Mix. Off by a little from the Cal Mix. The 5A is at 1360 rt for the Landis consume and 1360 for the blank urine.5. There was no switching of peaks. The 1246.9 was not FOR THE 5B but for the etio. 6. The results are summarized at LNND 724.7. I'm getting tired of dealing with half baked science. And I'm not even a scientist. I be to leave the science to thoe who know what they are doing. LET ME REPEAT: THERE WAS NO SWITCHING OF the 5A or 5B PEAKS IN THE LANDIS F3. Even duckstrap doesn't affirm that.
M. Dr. M-A and Dr. Brenna don't seem to be to post here. I think it's up to us idiots to deal with the science as best we can. I vote for giving emailer a chance to inform. I mean in the final analysis how much do I know about sports law? I sometimes picture Jacobs or Suh reading some of the stuff I've written and laughing their asses off. If the folks here are nice enough to let me look for my way around the law we can be generous with those who might be fumbling their way around the science. And maybe emailer has a point. Though I'm not following it yet.
M-Regarding your inform #3 from yesterday:"3. Elution as a change state adjoining arrive at will not alter the 5A carbon measurements. That is what Brenna testified and change surface Meier."Found those slides from Meier -his powerpoint is in the November 7 major enter channel:http://trustbut blogspot com/2007/11/major-release-of-hearing-documents htmlIn particular. I am taking Meier's slide 13 which is a direct quote from an article by Brenna which reads: " Overlaping peaks detected by conventional algorithms are systematically distorted in isotope ratio even for closely matched compounds though high precision is maintained. Further small trailing peaks can significantly affect the apparent isotope ratio of the major peak."Later on slide 36:"The GC/MS chromatogram of Floyd’s A consume (Fraction 3) is clearly much more complex than the control urine (BLU) let alone the Mix Cal Acetate mix. In the alter flank of 5ßA there is clearly a peak not present in the control urine and the peak tail of 5ßA together with the unknown arrive at tail into 5αA. The arrive at go away of 5αA at 15.4 min is clearly higher than its peak end at 15.6 min. If peak co-occur already occurs in GC/MS it will undoubtedly occur in GC/C-IRMS."My take from Meier's slides:1) Floyd's sample has overlapping peaks on GC/MS (which could only overlap to a greater degree on GC/C/IRMS.2) Overlapping or trailing peaks significantly alter the calculate of the isotope ratio of the major peak. Based on this. I would say at least Meier would disagree with you and Brenna might disagree on principle. At the trial. Brenna's testimony:(from http://trustbut blogspot com/2007/05/hearing-monday-brenner-part-i html)Q: What about the peaks following the 5a? Would they have any influence on the 5a arrive at?A: No. Q: What about 171? Would the 8 after the 5a affect the result?A: No. It might for diagnostic purposes if we thought there was a problem. Q: 173 -- You don't see them as clearly in the IRMS. Does that suggest anything do by with the IRMS?A: No. They detect things different ways the sensitivity of IRMS is related to the carbon circumscribe - this is predictable; the sensitivty of GCMS is sensitive to the molecular structure and harder to predict. We'll see peaks in GCMS we won't in IRMS. So that doesn't concern me. Q: Do any of those 8 peaks feature on the reliability of the 5a results?A: No. Unfortunately. Brenna is not forced to elaborate on why he does not evaluate the GC/MS peak overlapping with 5A would affect the estimate of its carbon content on IRMS. To me looks like we got a disagreement from the experts. Understandably. Brenna being on team USADA is not really explaining his thoughts as clearly as Meier can on his powerpoint so I don't evaluate we have as alter an opinion from him. Perhaps we can lay a conference label with the gents. Anyway your thoughts are appreciated. Dan
Mingo,Brenna replies to Meier's Slide 13 on redirect since that was his article that was quoted. Meier testifies in Slides 20 to 24 that a close arrive at caused the 5A delta to get larger. On redirect. Brenna testified that to the contrary such a arrive at caused the 5A delta to get smaller. I quoted this Brenna language in one of my comments way down below. It's also cited in the majority decision and relied upon. You should also read Meier's testimony regarding slide 16. He explains there that noise and sloping baselines can in most cases be corrected for. If I remember correctly it was only Meier's testimony re: slides 20 -24 that raised a specific issue wrt to the F3 chromatograms. Most of his glide show chromatography testimony was general or referred to other examples.
m,Hmmm read glide 13 then look at the furnish right diagram of slide 16 (yes glide 16 - worth careful examination). Now look at any of the F3 chromatograms even the blanks. Those which exhibit a perfectly vertical line seperating the peaks undergo had that line retrofitted to the curves to attempt to seperate the peaks. In some cases only a small overlap existed. In other cases a large overlap existed. For the latter. LNDD have decided to adopt an unusual tactic. In some cases they went drink the "it's caused by a sloping background" despatch whilst in other almost identical cases they decided to include what had previously been regarded as background and change integrity the peaks with an axe (the vertical lines). I think if you humor me and closely examine the F3s you'll see what I mean. He was clearly referring to the F3 peaks with this testimony. He talked extensively about overlapping peaks. The F3s exhibited overlapping peaks. Perhaps he should undergo spelled it out more clearly but it is not unusual for these academic types to overestimate the abilities of their audience. Ali
m,Let us not move a molehill into a mountain. If you don't believe he ever specifically referred to the F3 then why do you create by mental act he focused on overlapping peaks ? Do you believe that this information was provided as a public service ?. While he happened to be on the stand he thought he'd throw in a bit of general education on interpretation of IRMS chromatograms for the acquire of the public ?. You're the lawyer go figure. Furthermore. I'm not on trial. If what is obvious to me is not obvious to you that's not my problem. I have already tried to explain it to you and you undergo rejected my explanation for the rather mundane alternative of "if it wasn't said explicitly it wasn't said". That's a lawyer's bet not a scientist's. Don't evaluate me to pursue these pointless evince games. This exercise is an act to determine the truth. As much as I'd like to define that outcome. I know that I can not. The spreadsheet confirms my reluctant impartiallity. We've not had any contradict feedback on that yet so I can assume that it is generally accepted as a working model. Both pro and anti Landis camps can use it to pursue their own theories. Respectfully. Ali
M-From: http://trustbut blogspot com/2007/05/hearing-mon-meier-augenstein-iii html(referring to slide 39 of Meier's PPT presentation -available on TBV's 'major document dump' page)q: slide 39. USADA 348 f3 sample B consume. GCMSa: yes q: USADA 349 disappearing peaks impact?a: can't say it's either part of one arrive at or the other q: 5b tails into 5a a: it will shift the delta values reported q: symmetry is important?a: yes if you don't know what the sample is.---------------------------------I evaluate this answers the question as to whether Meier specifically addresses F3 in this believe other testimony that day that addresses coelution or overlapping peaks :---------------------------------Slide 28q: why this delay?a: illustration of peak overlap effects on reported deltas.[ shows -27.4 reported at -32.1 ][ shows a fatty acid chromatogram ]q: what does this show?a: bad chromatogram good example of strongly overlapping peaks. This slopes up due to column bleed; there is something else q: we've heard if small peaks co-elute it doesn't mattera: if you know what you are dealing with yes but not if you don't.[ Landis is focused ]a: if it's hugely different than your target peak you can't assume the contribution is minor.[ glide labelled consequences for delta C13 values from previous fatty acid slide ]a: so this compares what you get from purely automatic analysis; we see three injections. Software get's a funny number?q: isn't it close enough?a: no!q: opinion on the chromotography here and the affect on the results a: no confidence peaks undergo disappeared co-eluted overlapped long tails downward sloping baselines q: A consume F1 USADA 158 what do you see:a: good shelter baseline no interference good separation daylight between peaks q: analyse fo USADA 165 and 167 a: the circled area shows them just about separated in the GCMS the IRMS shows first peak bleeding into second q: alter?a: ordain alter C13 numbers for both. The first will look more positive the latter more negative q: USADA 171 circlesa: clearly visible shoulders between 5a and 5b and 8 minor peaks following q: GC/MS chromatogram a: 4 peaks not 8 following; disappearing shoulders; where did they go?q: it's so small it doesnt' matter?a: can't draw any conclusions only speculate q: good enough?a: terribly sorry you don't work on asusmptions q: they're all cheaters a: they all undergo rights to a fair hearing and access to the data. I don't know what these are given the discrepency in the retention times. Thanks M -I'm really glad I read that testimony for myself. Dan
M-Thanks mouth. Yes -page 1214 the F3 GC/MS is reviewed and on the next summon the GC/C/IRMS. Meier suggests the peak between 5B an 5A dissappears on GC/C/IRMS and one can't say whether it has merged with 5B or 5A. When Brenna is shown the chromatographs on rebuttal (page 1682) he simply says he does not see a problem. Suh does not go across him on this. Re: Brenna's rebuttal of the leading and trailing peaks affecting the carbon 13 estimate. Brenna's rebuttal is kind of vague but suggests that the effect of two peaks overlapping is that the trailing peak's C13 actually increases (becomes less contradict (p.1680):"There's two overlapping peaks. Let2 me get this alter. It showed that the direction3 would be the opposite of what was quoted and4 our study was really quite an extensive study in5 this regard. And so were there overlapping6 peaks particularly in relationship to the7 5-alpha. I would have expected it to rise not8 fall compared to -- as an artifact. If it were9 an artifact which I don't accept it is."So we got two gentlemen discussing what would seem a simple air to resolve experimentally: If two peaks co-occur what is the effect on the second arrive at (the one on the right with the longer retention measure)? Brenna seems to say the second peak will see its carbon 13 change state less negative while Meier seems to say that it becomes more negative. Brenna has the paper that's published and quoted by Meier. Meier provides experimental data (slides 30-32) that seem to back his point. Who's right?"No more yankie my wankie. The Donger need food. "Dan
M. I write this with great trepidation knowing what you think of non-scientists offering science explanations. I'm asking that you don't shoot me for doing this. I'm not trying to be Dr. Brenna here. I'm just trying to state what looks desire ought to happen when you decide two overlapping peaks to go the discussion and to see what we can figure out. No one should use this as a chew over guide for their final exam on chromatography. Also M forgive me for writing this in simple language. I'm perfectly happy to have the more science-oriented disunite this affix to shreds so long as I learn something in the process and do not completely lose whatever remains of my self-esteem. And no be what happens here. I GET IT. I'm not a scientist and anything conclusive is going to undergo to come from the scientists.(whew! If that's not enough of a disclaimer then I give up.)Take a look at the earlier discussion at. Without meaning to we started to address the question of what direction the error would tend to go when two IRMS peaks overlap. Ali and TBV undergo taught us that when we're looking at a peak on an IRMS chromatograph we're actually looking at two peaks closely superimposed: a C13 arrive at and a C12 arrive at. The C13 peak appears on the graph slightly earlier than the C12 peak. To get a picture of what I'm talking about act a look at the first chart in Figure 0 at. If you have two overlapping peaks on an IRMS map you be to keep in mind that there are actually two C13 peaks and two C12 peaks represented on the chart. Again try to keep in object the drawing at evaluate 0 I cited above and create by mental act adding a second set of C13 and C12 peaks to Figure 0 with one set of peaks slightly overlapping the second. What happens when this overlap takes displace? Well for the first (left-most) set of peaks the co-occur will alter the C12 peak more than the C13 peak because the C12 arrive at is slightly to the right of the C13 arrive at. The affect on the second (right-most) peak should be just the opposite - the overlap will alter the C13 arrive at more than the C12 arrive at because the C13 peak is slightly to the left of the C12 peak.(I'd add a drawing if I could to make this alter. Maybe we can do this at some point if what I'm saying is not entirely clear.)Now if I have this straight the delta-delta evaluate for measuring for the presence of exogenous testosterone looks to see if the ratio of C13 to C12 is suspiciously low. So any problem with an IRMS chart that tends to underreport the C13 ratio creates a potential for a false positive reading. Now the crux of my understanding here is that when two IRMS peaks co-occur then for the left-most arrive at we'll tend to measure a higher C13/C12 ratio than we should because the overlap hides more C12 and less C13. That creates a potential for a false negative. Conversely for the right-most peak we'll tend to decide a lower C13/C12 ratio because the overlap hides more C13 and less C12. This creates the potential for a false positive. This problem is illustrated in the examples TBV and Ali created in part III of the idiot's guide to integration see have in mind above. be at the examples in figures 11. 12 and 13. As TBV and Ali increase the co-occur of the two IRMS peaks shown in these figures the measured C13/C12 determine for the right-most peak gets smaller and smaller and the possibility of a false adverse finding goes up accordingly. Now. TBV and Ali do not show this in part III but my anticipate would be that the measured C13/c12 ratio for the left-most peak would INCREASE in these examples as the overlap increases. (TBV and Ali is this correct?)So this idiot with a small "i" thinks that Dr. M-A probably has it alter in this particular argument. Of course we're talking about very simple examples and even TBV warned me that in the real world we'd undergo to deal with a number of other possible variables that could push the evaluate results in other directions. OK. M. Go ahead and do your beat only be kind to me! I'm just interested in truth justice and beauty.
M. I don't see how I can reconcile my proposed explanation with Brenna's testimony. I don't think Brenna explained why he thought that there would be a decreased delta-delta with an overlapping arrive at. If I don't know his reasoning how can I offer a reconcilation?Probably the exceed question is why did Drs. Brenna and M-A disagree on such a fundamental point? Unless we can somehow harmonise their testimony then the beat I could wish to do would be to explain the testimony of one doctor but not the other. Actually both doctors agreed that when you have overlapping IRMS peaks there will be a tendency for the delta-delta reading on the second peak to err in a particular direction. Yes they disagreed on the direction! But they did agree that there would be a tendency for error and that this tendency was not random. I'm offering up for discussion a very simple explanation for why there'd be a tendency for error in a particular direction. In any event. I'm not trying to be adversarial. I'm not a scientist (as you well experience) and it isn't possible that my proposed explanation could be the final word here.
Total Website Prize: to the fabulous geniuses over at trustbutverify who not only are perhaps the most impassioned defenders of Floyd Landis' virtue beyond only the boy himself but actually seem to understand the detailed scientific arguments they put out that the be of us (come up me) are too stupid to even coherently ingeminate. Floyd you better be innocent or you owe these folks a *major* freakin' apology! ()
"Who does awards for blogs? I sense a nomination is in request." ( of BikeBiz)"Hands-down champion of full-and I mean full-coverage of this hearing is the communicate. You'll have to have excellent accent knowledge of the issues and wade through page after summon of detail to get to anything interesting but it's raw and unfiltered and all there. The guy who runs the site a cycling fan from Northern California began casually providing a clearinghouse for Landis case news nearly 10 months ago and now he has the haunted look of a man whose life has been hijacked and wants it approve. (Loren Mooney co-author of at )
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://trustbut.blogspot.com/2007/11/emailer-looks-at-peak-identification.html
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
