More than nine months after Floyd Landis was crowned 2006 Tour de France champion — and subsequently charged with illegal doping — the American will attempt to clear his name when his arbitration hearing begins Monday at Pepperdine University in Malibu, California.

The stakes are simple — and very high. If Landis and his attorneys can convince at least two members of the three-person arbitration panel that he did not use synthetic testosterone to win the ’06 Tour, he’ll retain his title and could re-commence his racing career.

But if the U.S. Anti Doping Agency successfully prosecutes its case, Landis will become the first Tour winner in more than 100 years to be stripped of his title, and he’ll face a two-year suspension from racing and another two-year exclusion from ProTour ranks.

Of course no matter who comes out on top in this round, it’s likely the loser will appeal the verdict to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, meaning a final outcome is probably still months away.

The arbitration hearing at Pepperdine is expected to last 10 days, with each side calling witnesses, who can in turn be cross-examined by the other side. The prosecution will try to prove Landis used synthetic testosterone to win the Tour, highlighting results from two tests that came out of his stunning stage 17 victory last July.

Landis hearing begins Monday

Landis was initially tagged with a positive after the sample he provided after his stage 17 victory showed a testosterone-to-epitestosterone ratio higher than the 4-to-1 standard outlined in the world anti-doping code. A second and more specific test examined carbon isotope ratios, which officials at the French national anti-doping laboratory said indicated the presence of synthetic testosterone.

Among other things, Landis and his team will argue that the carbon isotope test is unreliable, and that the lab committed multiple egregious errors while carrying out the tests.

The three arbitrators in the case are Canadian attorneys Richard McLaren and Patrice Brunet, and Boston-based lawyer Chris Campbell, who was once an Olympic wrestler. Campbell also served as an arbitrator on the Tyler Hamilton hearing, and cast the lone vote in Hamilton’s favor.

The Landis side chose Campbell, while USADA picked McLaren. The two other arbitrators then selected Brunet.

VeloNews is providing full coverage of the entire hearing, which is slated to run daily from 9:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Part of that coverage will include expert analysis by Denver-based attorney Antonio Gallegos, who will be viewing the proceedings live in California.

Gallegos works for the firm of Holland and Hart and specializes in commercial litigation and government investigation work. He is also an avid cyclist and an authority in sports law.

Prior to the start of the Landis hearing — the first of its kind to be made public — Gallegos gave us his take on what to expect in the coming days.

VeloNews.com: Start with the basics. What are the keys to this case?

Antonio Gallegos: The keys I think are the things Landis and his camp have been pointing out already; it’s what’s been going on with the testing and the protocol. Because the way the rules are set up, you know technically USADA has the burden of proof, but the rules are set up in such a way, that the testing is presumed to be valid, so essentially all USADA has to do is produce a positive test result, and technically, they’ve met their burden of proof.

Then it’s up to Landis and his team to show that there were irregularities in the testing and that those testing irregularities created the positive result. That’s essentially the way it goes. So the things Landis has been pointing out through the media are definitely the keys to the case here.

VN.com: Explain more about burden of proof. Technically it’s on USADA, but then they produce a test result and the burden changes?

AG: Right, it’s what they call a shifting burden. Initially the burden is on USADA, they show their test results and I’m sure they’ll have their people talk about why the test results are valid. They wouldn’t just sit on the test result and say, “Here you go.” I’m sure they’ll talk about that and they’ll probably have some well-qualified people do that. Then, once that’s out there, it’s up to Landis to say, well, here’s what went wrong with the testing and this is why that testing produced a false result.

VN.com: What will the day-to-day flow of the hearing likely consist of?

AG: Being that it’s arbitration, it’s slightly different than a courtroom setting. You have three, arbiters who are not judges, but they are experienced in law. It’s different in that you have three people making decisions, rather than one judge. There may be a lot of objections on different things, but the way things work in arbitration like this, the rules as to what comes into evidence are not as strict as they are in a courtroom. So a lot of the evidence that both sides want to bring in, will come in. It’s hard to say where the arbitrators are going to draw the line of saying this type of information is not really relevant or reliable and should not be admitted.

VN.com: What is procedure? Will USADA present their case and have the floor for first few days, and then Landis gets to present his case?

AG: Yes, that’s the way the arbitration typically works. The side bringing the charges presents their case, and then the defense presents theirs. Technically the defense doesn’t have to present a case, but you would be foolish not to. They might even allow some time for USADA to do a rebuttal. It just depends.

VN.com: Is 10 full days typical of these kinds of proceedings?

AG: It’s definitely not unusual. It may be slightly longer than your average arbitration, but it’s certainly not unusual and compared to some full-blown courtroom jury trials, it’s definitely right there in the typical range of a major case.

VN.com: How does one become an arbitrator? Who are these people?

AG: They are on a list of qualified arbitrators and I’m not exactly familiar with the process of how these people were selected. But they have to be certified by the American Arbitration Association. And then from there, there is a separate sort of approval or application process to be approved by the court of arbitration for sports. So there is a pool of candidates to choose from.

VN.com: How do you get on that initial list? Do you need to be a lawyer a judge?

AG: It’s typically lawyers and judges with some substantial experience in courtroom litigation and arbitration. And then when you get into specialty areas, then some substantial experience in the specialty area is required.

VN.com: What is the impact of having this hearing in public? This is a fairly historical happening, isn’t it?

AG: I do think it’s pretty big and it was a strategic move definitely on Landis’ part. It carries potential risks and rewards. But the big thing is that it treats it more like an open courtroom proceeding. It exposes the process to the public, so the public, the interested public can make their conclusions based on whatever evidence they can get through media outlets and what is broadcast to the public.

Equally important is that the public can judge the process by which Landis is being judged. Before, like with Tyler Hamilton for instance, that was all done privately behind closed doors at Hamilton’s request. And so, the public just has a general sense of what’s going on, but can’t really make their own determination as to whether this is truly fair. And this will give interested folk a chance to form an opinion about that based on some real information.

VN.com: What is your take on the recent allegations that the arbitrator chosen by Landis was left out of the loop on the decision to allow further testing on urine samples taken at the Tour?

AG: It doesn’t appear to be against the written rules, although I would say it’s not a typical move. It’s a little bit unusual for two of the arbitrators to issue some form of written order or clarification without consulting the third. But I guess the justification was that they were clarifying a previous order which Mr. Campbell had not participating in, so his input wasn’t needed on that specific issue. It doesn’t appear to be any kind of clear violation, although it does seem a bit unusual and definitely raised a few eyebrows both on the Landis’ camp and among interested legal observers.

VN.com: How about the time of the accusation that Landis was offered a deal if he’d implicate Lance Armstrong?

AG: It’s definitely a big issue, a big charge to put out there right before things get started. Although Landis had said he had made at least some references to this in the past, again it’s clearly a strategic move to I think, for Landis and his team to try and highlight what they see as an unfair process here and other motivations in a search for the truth.

VN.com: How much do you think the final outcome will be affected by pure science and how much by the accusations Landis has made about the procedure itself?

AG: It’s hard to say, it’s hard to figure out what exactly goes on in the arbitrator’s minds and what kind of discussions they have when they have their own deliberations deciding what their ruling is going to be. I have talked with some of our in-house litigation consultants who do jury consulting. They do social science research to figure out how juries and judges and arbitrators make their decisions. Although arbitrators have legal training and are going to apply those skills, they are also human beings and can be swayed by persuasive arguments.

VN.com: How much responsibility do the arbitrators have to be up to speed before the case, or are they instructed to come in with clean slate so to speak?

AG: They are supposed to make their decision based on the evidence. They are not supposed to make their decision based on anything that’s been said prior, only by the evidence that is presented in the case. But clearly the Landis side thinks there is value to putting a lot of information out there beforehand.

VN.com: The Landis camp has repeatedly said the anti-doping system is weighted against athlete, making it almost impossible for athlete to prove his innocence. What are you’re feeling about this?

AG: I do think there is some basis to it, but I’m not commenting on whether that’s actually a true statement. It’s certainly not an unfounded statement on Landis’ part. Because as I mentioned earlier, the way the rule is set up, is that the testing is presumed to be valid. So USADA doesn’t have to go in and really validate their testing, although they probably will. But they don’t have to and so the test result itself carries a tremendous amount of weight that Landis, or any other accused athlete, has to refute. So in that regard, it is an extremely high hurdle for the athlete if you have a positive analytical finding.

VN.com: What do you make of USADA’s perfect record? They are 34-0 in these type cases?

AG: I do think it’s meaningful in some way. One, it reflects the strength of their testing and the rules that are used in the procedures to presume the validity of their testing. And I think it also demonstrates on their part that they’re very vigilant about their duty to keep doping out of sports.

VN.com: Leading up to the case are Landis and the other witnesses doing any kind of practicing to get ready?

AG: You certainly have to prepare your witness. The witness has to know what type of questions to expect and what the subject and what the issues are that are going to be coming at him or her. If you don’t do that, you are not doing your job as a lawyer.

VN.com: What else would you like to add that you think is important to this discussion?

AG: I would just say that I think this case is going to be important for both sides no matter the outcome. If Landis wins, there are going to be all those people who say well, he really did it but he got off on technicalities by attacking the testing. If USADA wins there will be people who say well I’m not sure Landis did it. I don’t think they gave the guy a fair shake. So the fact that it’s been public is really going to put this process under a microscope. I think that’s going to be the biggest impact.

VN.com: So do you have a prediction?

AG: I can’t do that. I have to wait and see what that evidence says and what actually makes it into the arbitration. Then we’ll all find out together.