Fair enough, the level of ctcoirtsoeroids was not enough to trigger an actual positive at that time, however upon reading David Walsh's various works, I don't agree that the trace amounts were reasonably explained. Also, I feel that the whole notion of testing positive' is being used by Armstrong and his people in a linguistically disingenuous manner. To them, testing positive' means the A sample containing an illegal amount of an illegal substance and the B sample containing an illegal amount of an illegal substance. I think they are deliberately using the term tested positive' rather than failed a drugs test'.But what of Armstrong's supposed failed test in the Tour de Suisse 2001? If we are to believe what we read, the A sample tested positive and was covered up. So there was no official verdict that he ever tested positive, therefore he can continue to trot out the never tested positive' line and he probably believes it himself. Time will tell .