The famous French sporting newspaper L’Equipe ran a story today that samples taken from Lance Armstrong in 1999 tested positive for EPO in 2004. The story claimed that the positive samples were from six “B” samples (the “A” ones were used during the ‘99 doping controls) and that the tests were 100% accurate. On a side note, in 1999, there was no reliable method to detect EPO use. According to the paper, the tests on 1999 urine samples were done last year to help scientists improve their EPO detection methods.

However, the director of Canada’s top anti-doping laboratory on Tuesday said she had “serious concerns” over the allegations and brought up some very interesting scientific facts

Doctor Christiane Ayotte, director of the Doping Control Laboratory at Montreal’s Institute National de la Recherché Scientifique, said that the L’Equipe story, outlining charges that seven-time Tour de France winner had used EPO at the 1999 edition of the race, raised several important scientific and ethical questions, beginning with the assertion that France’s anti-doping lab had tested frozen urine samples five years after the fact.

“We are extremely surprised that urine samples could have been tested in 2004 and have revealed the presence of EPO,” Ayotte said in an interview with VeloNews on Tuesday. “EPO – in its natural state or the synthesized version – is not stable in urine, even if stored at minus 20 degrees.”

“One of two things happens,” De Ceaurriz said. “Either EPO, which is a protein, degrades as time passes and becomes undetectable. In that case we have a negative test result or, as in this case, the EPO persists as it is. We have therefore no doubt about the validity of our results.”

Also, if the tests were positive in 2004 and there were six (SIX!), why didn’t anyone come forward sooner, like before the Tour?

Of course, Lance denied the allegations saying he has never, ever used performance enhancing substances.