May 24, 2007 (Malibu, CA) — Yesterday heard closing arguments by both sides in the Floyd Landis doping hearing at Malibu’s Pepperdine University. The 10-day hearing – revolved around Landis’ alleged doping with synthetic testosterone when he won the 2006 Tour de France. Landis’ defence counsels hammered away at the litany of procedural errors committed at the Laboratoire national de dépistage du dopage (LNDD), the anti-doping laboratory near Paris, France, that tested Landis positive. Meanwhile, the prosecuting US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) lawyers attacked Landis’ character. The case is being judged by a three-member panel of the American Arbitration Agency (AAA).

Richard Young, the lead USADA lawyer, said that the case was unusual in that such hearings normally only discuss what was in the athlete’s urine, but with Landis the discussion also caught a glimpse of what was on his mind, in part referring to the Greg LeMond testimony where one member of the Landis camp allegedly tried to blackmail LeMond into not testifying. The USADA also maintains that Landis adopted a “win at all costs” attitude that lead him to doping.

Young pointed to Landis’ 11-to-1 testosterone-to-epitestosterone ratio from stage 17 of the 2006 TdF as clear evidence of doping, satisfying the burden of proof that USADA must present in such cases. Further analysis of Landis’ B samples using a sophisticated isotope ratio mass spectrometer (IRMS) machine indicated that not one, but four samples showed evidence of testosterone doping.

The Landis camp rebutted that it wasn’t just Landis on trial but that this case was a referendum on the anti-doping system. Defence counsel Maurice Suh said, “(this is) the first case to chronicle the systematic failures of an anti-doping laboratory to follow its own rules and procedures. If the International Standard for Laboratories (ISL) doesn’t apply to the violations that deal with identification and the ability to properly identify the proper isotopic ratios of this case, then the ISL is a fraud.” Suh’s strategy is to seed doubt about the laboratory tests, shifting the burden of proof back onto USADA.

Landis is under a gag order and thus prevented from talking to the media. His parents, Paul and Arlene, dressed in traditional Mennonite attire and Paul clutching a Bible, were under no such restraint. “We’ve received lots of encouragement from many marvellous people around the world,” commented Paul Landis. “Sometimes we’ve received support from total strangers and sometimes our friends have avoided us.” Arlene Landis is still sure of her son’s innocence, but seems less sure what the AAA judgment might be, declaring, “Whatever the outcome is God’s design for our son.”

There were some signs that at least one of the three AAA panel members is sympathetic to Landis’ case. Chris Campbell, a San Francisco area lawyer, commented to Young at the end of his closing arguments, saying that the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) should have an ethic that obligates laboratory directors to point out errors to their colleagues because (the present situation), “is a real problem.”

If Landis loses the judgment, he will be stripped of his winner’s yellow jersey in the 2006 TdF and face a two-year suspension. A decision is not expected for several weeks and we might know who wins the 2007 Tour de France before we know who won the 2006 TdF. While both sides could appeal an unfavourable judgment, and it is rumoured that Landis is running out of cash after spending possibly $2 million on the hearing.