Floyding FRENZY ... the noose is wrapping...

ZENistas, Landistas,

I read this extract from the Los Angeles Times coverage of the testimony of Madame Cynthia Mongongu, at the point of cross-examination by Landis' attorney Howard Jacobs:

"Mongongu was also asked about a leak of the April results to L'Equipe, a French sports journal. L'Equipe's report that several of the tests had returned positive results appeared on April 24 — the morning after the tests were completed.

"Mongongu denied passing the results to L'Equipe or knowing who did. She also said that she was never questioned on the matter by the lab's director, Jacques De Ceaurriz."

Forgive me, but: you are a French Governmental employee, in a facility under the direction of Professeur Jacques de Ceaurriz, which is charged with:

a- testing, and if 'positive' confirming, and
b- keeping ALL results confidential.

Until proper 'results management' criteria can be followed.

Although in an arbitration, not a court of law, she is sworn to give truthful testimony.

As Landis' team of attorneys moves forward, they are wise to include all the aspects of the case showing repetitive ignorance (in both senses of the word: as lacking-in-knowledge; as taking-action-in-spite-of-the-rules) by LNDD of the sporting world they seek to serve.

But is it likely that de Ceaurriz would NEVER ask this person, at the heart of the controversy, a member of a team, which is now apparently sinking like the Lusitania, if she knew who was the LEAKER?

It is likely, if de Ceaurriz knows who the leaker is. It is also likely, if de Ceaurriz supports the unrestrained leaking violations of WADA CODE within his agency.

It is unlikely, on the other hand, for her to never be questioned about these leaks to L'Equipe, by the man in charge of maintaining a facility that is under WADA ISL and IST rules, as well as the pertinent ISO standard ( ISO/IEC 17025) for certified lab activities.

One by one, my friends, we'll eliminate the potential leakers: this has great auspices for the future dignity of sports-doping investigations.

Stand by for more fun...

ç*””*”*”*ç*””* ZENmud *””*ç*”*”*””*ç

Floyding Frenzy Day TWO update

ALERT!

In yesterday's first morning testimony, Attorney Maurice Suh, just before the lunch break, was cross-examining witness Cedric Shackleton. In his series of questions,he asked him clearly 'You don't use bad chromatography [.....]?'

Shackleton's response, at EXACTLY 03:00:00, (LINK requires passwords, may be better if you start here)was AMAZING:

He clearly said "If I got this, I would send i- I'm sorry...." and stopped.

Suh had him! and unfortunately jumped at the witness' interruption, to ask him to repeat what he was going to say. HE WAS GOING TO SAY: "If I got this, I would send it [back to the idiot that did it!]"

That gave the witness enough time to realize the trap he had just managed to avoid.

His second response was NOT the same; it was clearly the answer that he is being paid $200.00/hour to state for the record:
"If I received this chromatogram, I would think that this was good chromatography."

For the record... that interruption was not the best way to extract the words from Shackleton. Suh should have said "Did you just say SEND IT BACK?"

A slam-dunk moment was avoided... crafty hesitant witness, against a lawyer that knew his moment had come and gone...

A first break in the case... remember where you read this!

ç*””*”*”*ç*””* ZENmud UPDATE *””*ç*”*”*””*ç