why it took that long.

Is an appeal to the CAS is done on paper, or do they actually go argue this whole thing again?

the ruling states that they threw out the result of the T/E ration test because it was done incorrectly. but they still believed the result of the IRMS which is a far more complicated test. seems strange reasoning, to still believe in a lab that can't do a T/E test right. despite this, I do think FL was doping one way or another as his haematocrit went up during the Tour. That is not normal is any way, the only reasonable way someone's haematocrit can go up after such extreme lengthy exertion is with some type of artificial help.

My feeling is that in a "normal" court of law Landis would have probably received the same treatment.  I sat on a DUI jury trial once.  There were two charges: Driving under the influence, and driving with a BAC of .08 or above.  We found the defendant guilty only on the .08 charge and let him off on the other one, but his sentence was going to be the same if he was convicted of one charge or both charges.  And the field sobriety test is easier to implement and less complicated than the .08 test. So the less complicated test really didin't have any bearing on the final sentence.
 

The ruling sounds like a clumsy attempt at rough justice.  

The majority concedes that the T/E test is inadmissible and cannot be used to prove a doping violation, and states that LNDD is sloppy, yet they use a different test result from the same sloppy lab to hang a doping violation on Landis.  In other words, "We know circumstantially that he is guilty of something, just give us a few extra weeks and we'll figure out a way to convict him."

The result is appalling even though it would be difficult to believe that Landis raced the TdF clean.

For anyone interested, you can get to the actual opinions of majority and dissent on Trust but Verify, linked above.  Chris Campbell's is easy to read but the majority will take some time.

http://www.usantidoping.org/what/management/arbitration.aspx

First it was the French and their Al Qaeda-loving LNDD. Now, evidently it's the Canadians who are against freedom:

The Panel was composed of Chairman Patrice M. Brunet (Montreal, Canada), Christopher L. Campbell (Alameda, California) and Professor Richard H. McLaren (London, Canada).

Guess which one wrote the dissenting opinion in favor of freedom!

if the synthetic substance is there, the man must go to the chair.  

any other verdict would have dramatically set back the only year in the history of cycling where real, sustained progress has been made against doping.

next up, mr. valv.piti.

nothing personal. i like floyd and i'll welcome him back in 2009.  but it's time to do the time.

I question the $2 million figure that Landis apparently spent on his defense.

At a Tour de Georgia news conference after the Stone Mountain stage, when pressed how he arrived at that figure, FL's attorney clarified that the money actually included "estimated losses of sponsorship and endorsement monies."

There's a big difference between spending $2 million and losing out on revenue. I'd like to know the actual amount he spent out of his pocket for his defense.