Landis has a book coming out soon where he will tell the "real story" of how he won the TDF. He apparently notified the court since several chapters discuss his pending case which technically violates the court mandated gag order until his US hearing is over.
One of the more interesting things from his hearing is the case of Joe Papp. Papp is a middle of the pack rider who was suspended about a year before Landis' trial for synthetic testosterone in his system. He testified in the Landis case and said Landis and his team were being preposterous in claiming that doping with synthetic testosterone would be pointless, nobody would do it, and they're not even sure it was possible to do it. Papp said people do it all the time, he'd been doing it for years when he finally got caught, he was testifying because he thought Landis' claim was so outlandish it was embarassing.
Landis' team had a fascinating rebuttal, they claimed that Papp was testifying as part of a plea deal, that in exchange for his testimona, USADA gave Papp an extremely light suspension, one they called ridiculously low.
Now correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't that mean that Landis and his team are complaining that Papp's suspension was too short, even though they contend that what he was suspended for wouldn't work, nobody does it, and it's practically impossible to do? Why would they think he should get a longer suspension if they don't believe it's possible to do what he got suspended for?