Move on, Floyd.

You're not going to get a fair shake.

Supporters of Lancaster County native Floyd Landis say they're still standing behind their hometown hero but feel he should finally quit the long, costly battle to clear his name and regain the 2006 Tour de France title.

"I don't know if he's going to appeal, but I would counsel against it," Rich Ruoff, director of RedRoseRaces.com, said today. "I think the cards are stacked against him, and I don't think he can win. I don't think it's a fair fight, and I think, even if he feels he should clear his good name, he's wasting his time and money."

Even Landis' mother, Arlene, said she wouldn't appeal Thursday's ruling upholding results of a test that showed the Conestoga Valley High School grad used synthetic testosterone to fuel his spectacular comeback victory.

"If it was me, I would say I proved my point and life isn't fair to everybody. I'm not a fighter. I wouldn't do that," she said this morning, adding, however, "I'm not him. If he knows he's innocent, I don't know why he wouldn't."

Said Eric Gebhard, Landis' longtime friend and fellow 1994 Conestoga Valley High School graduate: "I don't think he is going to appeal. That's just my gut feeling. I don't know if they expect to get a different verdict somewhere else. Why waste millions more dollars?"

The arbitration panel ruling means the 31-year-old Landis, who grew up in the Ephrata-area village of Farmersville, must forfeit his Tour title and is subject to a two-year ban, retroactive to Jan. 30, 2007.

In a prepared statement Landis, who reportedly has spent $2 million in his legal battle to clear his name and fight the charges, called the ruling "a blow to athletes and cyclists everywhere" but remained vague on whether he would appeal.

He has 30 days to decide whether he will take the case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, his last line of appeal. Speaking to ESPN.com, he said he must "assess whether a system that corrupt is worth subjecting myself to again. I don't have any reason to believe that CAS is any more sincere."

Supporters and acquaintances here agreed, including Daniel Garrett, who taught Landis in 12th-grade economics and is now a magisterial district judge in Warwick Township. He was on Landis' witness list at the May hearing at Pepperdine University in Malibu, Calif.

Garrett, speaking this morning, called the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency hearing a "kangaroo court" and was skeptical Landis could get a fair shake by appealing.

"I still cannot believe that they did not have the moral fortitude to look at the evidence and rule in his favor," he said. "If this was in front of a jury, the jury would have deliberated for less than an hour and found in favor of Floyd.

"Why should you appeal? If it was going in front of an independent judge, absolutely, unequivocally yes, appeal. But we're on that same treadmill, I'm afraid," Garrett said. "It's sad to see somebody who has worked as hard as he has, the sacrifices he and his family have made, to get to the pinnacle of his whole career — only to have it crumble."

"Mr. Landis is currently weighing his future legal alternatives in pursuing his case, but has said that finances may force him to give up his opportunity to continue the appeal process," his statement read.

The three-member arbitration panel ruled against Landis, 2-1, four months after the nine-day hearing and more than a year after the cyclist's stunning comeback in Stage 17 of the 2006 Tour, one that many people said couldn't be done without some kind of outside help.

Pat McQuaid, the leader of cycling's ruling body — the International Cycling Union — said rules dictate that Landis can be stripped of his Tour de France title immediately, meaning Oscar Pereiro, who finished second last year, is the official winner.

Landis insisted on a public hearing not only to prove his innocence, but to provide an unflinching look at USADA and the rules it enforces, and to establish a pattern of incompetence at the French lab where his urine was tested.

Indeed, in the panel's 84-page decision, the majority found that 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 ratio analysis (IRMS) performed after a positive T-E test is recorded, was accurate, the arbitrators said, meaning "an anti-doping rule violation is established."

"As has been held in several cases, even where the T-E ratio has been held to be unreliable ... the IRMS analysis may still be applied," the majority wrote. "It has also been held that the IRMS analysis may stand alone as the basis" of a positive test.

Although the panel rejected Landis' argument of a "conspiracy" at the Chatenay-Malabry lab, it did find areas of concern. The concerns 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 lone Landis supporter on the panel, Chris Campbell, called for the case to be dismissed in a scathing dissent.

"The documents supplied by (the French lab) are so filled with errors that they do not support an Adverse Analytical Finding," Campbell wrote. "Mr. Landis should be found innocent."

U.S. Anti-Doping Agency CEO Travis Tygart applauded the decision.

"Today's ruling is a victory for all clean athletes and everyone who values fair and honest competition," Tygart said.

(This article contains information from The Associated Press.)

CONTACT US: tmurse@LNPnews.com or 481-6021