The EPO tests - instituted at Chatanay-Malabry - do work and did work.
The test, the detection of EPO in urine, detected EPO in six separate samples
given by Lance Armstrong at the 1999 TDF.
(It needs to be re-iterated that the same samples were deemed to be clean under the UCI test - false negative).
You earlier cited the Beke case to put forward your defence of the six samples of LA's urine containing EPO.
I suggest that you read the Beke case more carefully before you (and others) attempt to ridicule the test at Chatanay-Malabry and WADA.
The Beke case and the Beke defence concerning the detection of EPO did not
question the result that EPO was found in Beke's samples as tested by WADA.
The Beke defence accepted that EPO was found in the sample taken and tested by WADA.
What Beke contested was how the EPO found in the sample, materialised.
Beke was able to prove that under physical exertion, he (Beke) produced EPO
naturally and that the sample - if taken - would show EPO in that sample.
In establishing his defence, Beke had to undergo a series of tests, under controlled conditions.
Beke also had to allow WADA medical personnel full access to his physiological
and medical data to substantiate the defence.
The bottom line here is that all EPO, whether synthetic or naturally occuring, is detected by the WADA test used at Chatanay-Malabry.
Therefore the test works and the test is reliable.
The issue for Armstrong whether her can establish if his six samples are synthetic or naturally occuring.
Armstrong, if he were to contest the validity of the result of the Chatanay-Malabry tests, would be required to make similar disclosures like Beke in order to mount his defence.
It should be noted that Armstrong hasn't (at the time of writing) mounted a defence to the WADA results, except making public statements about "the french" and "conspiracies".