LAUSANNE, Switzerland (Reuters) - Floyd Landis's decision last week to appeal against the stripping of his 2006 Tour de France title means the American joins a long list of athletes whose fates have been determined by the powerful but discreet Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

Housed in a set-back mansion in an unassuming residential suburb in the Swiss city of Lausanne, CAS rarely attracts notice from the outside world.

But within its thick walls - which once protected military secrets during the building's previous occupation by the Swiss army - decisions have been taken that have instantly stripped away Olympic gold medals, nullified contracts or ended sporting careers.

Following Landis's appeal against the American Arbitration Association ruling that also issued the rider with a two-year ban, the court is now set to determine the rightful ownership of world cycling's biggest prize.

A final decision after the hearing takes place is likely by March.

"The major cases will always attract a lot of publicity," CAS general secretary Mathieu Reeb told Reuters. "But the important thing for us is that we have consistent case law particularly on issues relating to doping.

"The main reason for publishing certain verdicts is to allow athletes and sporting bodies to know what the legal opinion is on matters like these."

STRICT LIABILITY

Landis's lawyers will be well aware that in doping cases CAS has frequently upheld the principle of "strict liability" as championed by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and the International Olympic Committee (IOC).

British skier Alain Baxter and Romanian gymnast Andrea Raducan are among the more unfortunate victims of that principle, having both lost Olympic medals after CAS hearings - despite the court's acceptance that they had taken banned substances by mistake.

Landis can perhaps draw more comfort from the fact that CAS has frequently sided against sporting bodies that failed to follow proper test procedures or correctly enact anti-doping legislation.

Canadian snowboarder Ross Rebagliati was involved in one such case in 1998 when CAS ruled he could keep his sport's first ever Olympic gold medal despite a positive test for marijuana.

Although Rebagliati famously insisted he was the victim of "passive smoke" he was actually cleared due to a lack of any formal agreement on marijuana testing between the International Ski Federation and the IOC.

Perhaps more relevantly to Landis, CAS cleared Spanish cyclist Inigo Landaluce of doping charges in December 2006 after finding that the lab technician who conduced the rider's 'B' sample had also been involved in analysing the 'A' sample.

Landis's lawyers are arguing that the same French laboratory made serious errors in the handling of the American's samples.

IOC FUNDING

Founded by the IOC in 1984 before being reformed into an independent body 10 years later, CAS still receives the majority of its funding from the IOC, international sports federations and national Olympic committees.

Court fees now account for the remaining 30 percent of its seven million Swiss francs (2.9 million pounds) annual budget.

"It is good that we are reaching a balance between the funding that comes from the Olympic movement and the funding that comes from the people who use the court because that gives us even more autonomy," says Reeb.

"On the other hand, the funding we get from the IOC is the only chance we currently have to offer appeals free of charge in all disciplinary matters. That means athletes will still have to pay their lawyers but at least they don't have to pay CAS."

REPUTATION FOR DISCRETION

Usually publicising its verdicts only in the most high-profile cases, and often in short, unembellished statements, the court has acquired a reputation for discretion, bordering on secrecy.

That reputation has been heightened by the fact that the court's hearings have all taken place behind closed doors with the notable exception of Irish triple Olympic swimming champion Michelle Smith-de Bruin.

De Bruin personally requested a public hearing before CAS in June 1999 but failed in her attempt to overturn a four-year ban for tampering with a urine sample.

"Having the hearings behind closed doors is traditional in arbitration matters and even when it comes to the appeals I think it is probably better that the athletes can state their cases without worrying about journalists being in the room.

"But if the parties agree to a public hearing, as they did in the De Bruin case, then there would be no objection on our part.

"Most of the publicity we make about the work of the court is aimed specifically at the sports world so it is probably true that the general public is not really aware of who we are."

INCREASING DEMAND

Athletes, sports bodies and their respective lawyers certainly seem increasingly aware of the court's existence with the number of cases heard each year rocketing from less than a dozen in the court's early years to roughly 200 now.

Although doping and disciplinary cases tend to attract more attention, it is actually football cases - particularly those involving transfer disputes - that account for most of the court's work, following FIFA's decision to allow appeals to CAS from 2004.

Of the 175 appeal cases heard by CAS in 2006, 118 concerned football disputes compared to 38 involving doping.

"From my personal point of view it is a necessary evil," Reeb says when asked about the number of sports disputes that now end up in arbitration.

"It's certainly not a good thing that there are more disputes arising from sport but it is probably inevitable if you think of the financial, commercial and even social aspects at stake.

"CAS is just a logical consequence or evolution of this development. We can discuss of course whether the development is good or not, but it is there and at least now there is an organisation of specialised people available for solving these disputes."