PARIS -- Floyd Landis lost his expensive and explosive doping case Thursday when arbitrators upheld the results of a test that showed the 2006 Tour de France champion used synthetic testosterone to fuel his spectacular comeback victory.

The decision means Landis, who repeatedly has denied using performance-enhancing drugs, must forfeit his Tour de France title and is subject to a two-year ban, retroactive to Jan. 30, 2007. According to hearing documents, the vote was 2-1 to uphold the results, with lead arbitrator Patrice Brunet and Richard McLaren in the majority and Christopher Campbell dissenting. The 84-page ruling, handed down nearly four months after a bizarre and bitterly fought hearing, leaves the American with one final way to possibly salvage his title -- an appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. He has a month to file an appeal.





Speaking from his home in Murrieta, Calif., outside San Diego, an angry Landis sounded as if he were leaning against an appeal and seemed fatalistic about the odds he will ever race professionally again.

"I have to assess whether a system that corrupt is worth subjecting myself to again," Landis told ESPN.com's Bonnie D. Ford. "I don't have any reason to believe that CAS is any more sincere.

"Money is a large part of it. I have to consider my family when I consider risking everything I have left. It might be like putting all my money in a slot machine."

Landis, who spent an estimated $2 million on his defense, called the ruling "completely absurd" and said he drew no consolation from the fact that the panel found some of the French lab's procedures wanting. Although he said he was surprised and disappointed by the decision, he added that it confirmed his suspicion that the outcome may have been a foregone conclusion.

"The only way this could have come out any differently is if one of the arbitrators was drunk and checked the wrong box," he said. "There's something going on here other than trying to figure out the science."

Landis said that having his Tour title summarily stripped stung badly despite all the time he has had to prepare mentally for that possibility.

"Of course it hurts," he said. "I worked for 15 years to do that. I earned it. To have it taken away in this manner couldn't hurt more."

The 31-year-old Landis said he feels ambivalent about racing again. "I do want to, but whether I will is a slim chance," he said.

The issue may be nearly moot if he is slapped with an additional 2-year ban from the Pro Tour, which runs the race schedule for elite teams -- although that structure itself has been threatened by the political infighting endemic to the sport.

He also could face a specific ban against competing in France if the French Anti-Doping Agency (AFLD) goes ahead with its own disciplinary proceeding, which it suspended pending the USADA panel's ruling.

"This is not a rewarding thing to be a part of right now," Landis said. "I would advise athletes all over the world to stop giving urine samples until these guys clean up their act."

If Landis decides to appeal and doesn't win, he'll be the first person in the 105-year history of the race to lose the Tour title because of a doping offense. Suh told Ford the Landis camp is "weighing their options" on whether to appeal. If the appeal goes forward, there is no precedent for an athlete having a CAS hearing open to the public. The CAS rules say the hearing must be confidential, but, according to Suh, the rules of the UCI, cycling's world governing body, state an athlete has the right to an open hearing. If Landis appeals, his lawyers say they will argue that the hearing should be open.

The lawyers who represented USADA took an entirely different view of the panel's ruling.





"The majority got the science right," said lead attorney Rich Young of the Colorado Springs office of Holme, Roberts & Owen, which has served as outside counsel in numerous cases brought by USADA. "I wasn't shocked by Mr. Campbell's dissent. We've seen them before."





In its decision, the majority found the initial screening test to measure Landis' testosterone levels -- the testosterone-to-epitestosterone test -- was not done according to World Anti-Doping Agency rules.

But the more precise and expensive carbon-isotope ration analysis (IRMS), performed after a positive T-E test is recorded, was accurate, the arbitrators said, meaning "an anti-doping rule violation is established."

Landis insisted on a public hearing not only to prove his

innocence, but to shine a spotlight on USADA and the rules it

enforces and also establish a pattern of incompetence at the French

lab where his urine was tested.

Although the panel rejected Landis' argument of a "conspiracy"

at the Chatenay-Malabry lab, it did find areas of concern. They

dealt with chain of command in controlling the urine sample, the

way the tests were run on the machine, the way the machine was

prepared and the "forensic corrections" done on the lab

paperwork.

"... the Panel finds that the practises of the Lab in training

its employees appears to lack the vigor the Panel would expect in

the circumstances given the enormous consequences to athletes" of

an adverse analytical finding, the decision said.

The majority repeatedly wrote that any mistakes made at the lab

were not enough to dismiss the positive test, but also sent a

warning.

"If such practises continue, it may well be that in the future,

an error like this could result in the dismissal" of a positive

finding by the lab.

In Campbell's dissenting opinion, Landis' case should have been one of

those cases.

"In many instances, Mr. Landis sustained his burden of proof

beyond a reasonable doubt," Campbell wrote. "The documents

supplied by LNDD are so filled with errors that they do not support

an Adverse Analytical Finding. Mr. Landis should be found

innocent."

According to Landis co-counsel Howard Jacobs, who has represented numerous athletes accused of dopiong offenses, the criticism of the lab in the ruling is highly unusual, if not unprecedented.

Young and co-counsel Matt Barnett told ESPN.com they were not troubled by the panel's criticism of the French lab, nor are they worried that it could result in a reversal if Landis appeals. They said the errors noted by the arbitrators did not affect the substance of the case, although the mistakes did, in Barnett's words, make it "somewhat messier."





"I really think clean athletes should be encouraged by this ruling," Barnett said. "It means USADA has a commitment to bring these cases even if they're tough cases."





The decision comes more than a year after Landis' stunning

comeback in Stage 17 of the 2006 Tour, one that many people said

couldn't be done without some kind of outside help. Flying to the

lead near the start of a grueling Alpine stage, Landis regained

nearly eight minutes against the leader, and went on to win the

three-week race.

"Well, all I can say is that justice has been done, and that

this is what the UCI felt was correct all along," Pat McQuaid,

leader of cycling's world governing body, told The Associated Press

by telephone. "We now await and see if he does appeal to CAS.