Just wondering, I haven't heard much about it: The tests that we hear about - are they testing for the 'presence' of EPO and other things? Or are they testing for a maximum value? There is a big difference.
If some lab went back and tested samples from years ago and the criteria was 'no measurable amount', were they measuring with the capability of the equipment back then?
I used to work for a company that always had problems EPA. During WW-II, there was some heavy manufacturing in that facility, and a lot of stuff was dumped into storm drains. It was considered OK back then, but not now. Eventually, EPA said about those particular chemical compounds, 'there shall be no measurable amount of x, y, and z'. Many dollars of cleanup later, EPA was happy. Until they tested again, some years later, with equipment that was more sensitive that what they'd used prior. More $$$ - and yeah, every generation of test equipment got more sensitive than the last.
I'm just speculating here - If Lance's case is similar, then technically he did pass under the rules at the time (I think those were the words he used). Somebody must have more sensitive equipment now. But still - even if newer tests show the presence of something, is there a limit or is it just 'detectible'? Apparently the USADA claims they 'detected' something, or that some previously administered test did. Unless they were putting all their bets into relying on the testimony of unknown witnesses.