The guessing game about when Floyd Landis's arbitration hearing in the United States will be held, where the embattled Tour de France champion will challenge his alleged positive doping test, has now been answered. Landis spokesman Michael Henson has announced that the hearings will be held May 14.

A conference announcement call was arranged so that Dr. Arnie Baker could present Landis’s “wiki defense” slide show to members of the media. Once Baker's presentation was done, however, questioning turned almost immediately to news being reported by Associated Press that the AFLD hearing in Paris will pass judgment on the case today.

Maurice Suh, an international lawyer retained by the Landis defence team in December, will represent Landis at the AFLD (the French anti-doping agency) hearings. Henson stated that they expect the hearings to open tomorrow, but do not expect a ruling to be made immediately.

"We don't know what, or if, any ruling will be made. Our hopes are that they will stay the proceedings until after the USADA hearing and follow the standard jurisdictional line," said Henson, the executive director of the Floyd Fairness Fund.

"The AFLD and Mr. Bordry (Phillippe Bordry, president of the AFLD) have been nothing but open and fair, and we hope they will stay the hearings and follow standard jurisdictional lines," added Brian Rafferty, who is the Floyd Fairness Fund chairman.

According to the Associated Press, Bordry stated that Landis could expect a fair hearing on Thursday. "It's not because someone is positive that he must be automatically suspended. The rights of the defence are very important," said Bordry.

Baker's presentation covered the following points: 1 - The mislabelling of Landis's sample makes it unclear whose urine was tested. 2 - By WADA's own standards, the B sample showed evidence of contamination and should not have been tested further. 3 - The testing was unreliable, due to wide variances in data. 4 - The test is not a true positive, because not all metabolites measured in the Carbon Isotope Ratio test used to confirm the presence or absence of testosterone were positive.


How many metabolites must be positive for the CIR test to be positive is expected to be a bone of contention during the arbitration hearings.

Baker stated his belief that all metabolites must show elevated levels, citing the standards at both the Australian anti-doping lab and the UCLA anti-doping lab, both of which require all metabolites to be elevated to declare a positive result.

Baker went on to explain that Landis's testosterone level was actually in the low to normal range, even though his testosterone-to-epitestosterone (T/E) ratio in some of the test results was high. The high ratio was the result of a much lower than normal epitestosterone level, rather than a high testosterone level.

Baker summed up the data from LNDD, France's anti-doping laboratory, this way: "This whole thing is so full of errors I don't know what to think, except I can't call it a positive test."

Over the coming months, the arbitration process moves into the discovery phase, with each side seeking the documentation and material needed to present their cases. Travis Tygart, general counsel for USADA recently told the Daily Peloton that the USADA side is ready to go to trial.

The Landis side, however, has not yet received all the documentation they need to present their defence. Since the scandal erupted after the rider’s 2006 Tour de France victory, Landis has spent an estimated $400,000 to $500,000 in order to gain access to these documents.

Rafferty described the process up to now as, "labyrinthine and horrifying" and "difficult to understand." He added: "We would like to get the information that's the right of anyone who's accused of something like this. We have the right to that, and we don't think they want to give it to us - maybe because they know what it will show."

The location of the hearing has yet to be determined, according to Henson, but an announcement is expected in the near future once the details are ironed out.

The arbitration panel in the United States is not likely to announce its decision before late spring or early summer. Regardless of the ruling, it is expected that the losing side will appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). A final decision from the CAS may not be announced until late 2007 or early 2008.