The facts are there. Despite your creative suggestion, the adverse finding cannot be meaningly "confirmed" by any response from me, but only be the B-sample, which did not corroborate the A-sample result. I'm not defending against an accusation so much as saying that these accusations died in 2003. It's up to you now if you still want to play ostrich.
In a 2009 interview with "nyvelocity", Michael Ashenden said, regarding the 2004 testing on Lance's 1999 urine samples:
"And you want to make sure that you, for example, weren’t looking at urine that has been contaminated with bacteria, or isn’t what we call unstable urine, where sometimes the bands shift not because of EPO use, but because of some other factors."
These tests of Lance's samples occurred in the 2004-2005 timeframe, fresh after Lagat's failed tests, and Ashenden describes precisely the situation that can be found in the report of Lagat's B-sample tests: The A-sample "bands" shifted, and the B-sample "bands" had shifted even further. That's in the report that you didn't bother to read. It was because of the incident with Lagat "all of these checks and cross checks were put in place" as leassons learned to avoid repeating the same mistakes.
You are a person of concentrated irony, a strange combination of experience and immaturity, like a sophomoric wisdom still waiting to be formed. You say there is no debate, because you have not been presented with arguments, attempting to conceal that you have also provided nothing of real substance. You even positioned yourself as the opposite of "flat earth", yet your style of propogating myths, reviving debunked accusations, and doubting authorities, while ignoring scientific evidence and providing no arguments of substance, most closely resembles a conspiracy theory, just replacing NASA with IAAF.
You started with a (rhetorical?) question about why you are not surprised. The answer it seems is that you do not bother to fully inform yourself, so nothing can surprise you.
Some of the rest of us have moved on since Oct. 2003. My guess is you made up your mind, and stopped moving on sometime in the '70s.
You sound like OJ's lawyer and the "glove". Whenever you show up to defend against doping accusations the rule of thumb is to take your response as confirmation of "an adverse finding".