May 20, 2007 (Malibu, CA) — Saturday was Day 6 in the Floyd Landis anti-doping hearing and the 2006 Tour de France winner took the stand to answer friendly questions from his own defence lawyers. In doing so, Landis refuted some of Greg LeMond’s testimony, but the TdF winner vs TdF winner comments will likely matter little in the final hearing decision.

Yesterday also heard from Wilhelm Schanzer, PhD, Director of the Institute of Biochemistry of the German Sports University Cologne and from Don Catlin, founder of the Olympic Analytical Laboratory, UCLA.

Landis, wearing a yellow tie reminiscent of his yellow TdF jersey, denied ever taking any banned doping substance with the sole exception of cortisone (for his hip injury) and that he informed cycling authorities of this. Landis claims that the evening before his amazing 130km break on the TdF’s stage 17, that he didn’t take testosterone, but rather was into whisky, drawing laughs in the court room.

Landis revealed that he first telephoned Greg LeMond last year after LeMond made public statements about how Landis “should admit his guilt.” Landis related how LeMond was sure that Lance Armstrong had doped and was sure that Landis had doped, “because he’d seen results.” Landis then said it wouldn’t make sense to admit to doing something that he didn’t do and asked what positive outcome could there be to such an admission. After that, the conversation turned to LeMond’s “secret” of being sexually abused as a child. Landis then distanced himself from (his former business manager) Will Geoghegan’s recent harassing telephone call to LeMond. Landis said that he didn’t know Geoghegan was planning to make the call. Landis’ testimony was calm and reasoned despite the tremendously trying times that the cyclist has faced in the past year.

Schanzer, speaking by telephone (presumably from Germany) claimed that routine anti-doping tests often miss testosterone doping, explaining why only one of Landis’ tests on the TdF came back posititve. While isotope ratio mass spectrometer (IRMS) tests are more accurate, these cost about $400 more than a routine test. The IRMS tests this April on Landis’ B samples returned four positive results.

Catlin then took the stand, saying that evidence of doping was “inescapable” in Landis’ case. Under cross examination, Catlin conceded that he came under pressure from the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) when he testified last year in favour of another athlete suspected of doping. “They told me it wasn’t a good idea to do that,” related Catlin.

Today the hearings took a break and will begin again on Monday when USADA lawyers will cross examine Landis. The complete witness list for Monday was not yet available at press time. Testimony is scheduled to conclude Wednesday at Malibu’s Pepperdine University, but it is still not clear when closing arguments will be heard.