i hope the lab publishes the complete methodology they used to handle and test the samples. if that same methodology is used today to successfully catch EPO users, then why wouldn't it work to detect EPO in properly stored samples?
Armstrong is standing behind the drug tests of '00 - '05 that were clean to support his position that he did not use performance enhancing drugs in '99. at least in my mind, if the tests they performed on the '99 samples pass the "proper science" test and are consistent with the methods & procedures used for the '00 - '05 tests, there is little reason to doubt the results of tests performed on the '99 samples.
the ethical issues behind leaking out information is a separate issue entirely. ethical questions are being used by many people, including Armstrong, to suggest the existence of a conspiracy theory against him (e.g., an unethical lab technician, poor lab practices, anti-american sentiment in france, jealousy in france about their state of cycling).
the only one worthy of discussion is whether the lab may have accidentally or purposely tainted the samples. in response to this allegation, the lab should be able to show the chain of custody of the samples, the storage methodology, and the testing methodology to sufficiently address these questions. once again, if the lab routinely tests blood & urine samples for athletic competitions, there is little reason to suggest that suddenly, their methods & procedures are questionable.
armstrong is the ONLY one who really knows whether he illegally used EPO. the scientists can only show test results that appear to show he did. unfortunately, armstrong has everything to gain by denying the allegations. hence the need for science to explain what tests they performed and how they handled the samples.
at this point, i support the scientists and assume armstrong is guilty of using EPO in '99. i will do so until such time as a more plausible argument is proposed by a non-biased source that explains how the science was flawed.