You're still not reading.
The Gent lab and Australian lab both notified the Spanish Cycling Federation about the negative B test results. Are you trying to say that the Spanish Cycling Federation is lying and neither labs in Gent or Australia have come out to call their lie?
I read quite well. Nowhere does it say "The Gent lab said it was negative".
It says the "Spanish Federation told Mayo it came back negative". So we are actually dealing with a description in English by Mayo's PR person of what Mayo was told in Spanish by the Spanish Federation was the content of a report sent to them from (the Dutch speaking part of) Belgium.
My job is in biostatistics. I can tell you that even between people with the same first language, the difference between "the result is negative" and "there isn't enough evidence to say the result is positive" is difficult to convey... especially when the hearer doesn't want to understand.
I am suggesting that the Spanish federation is trying to spin the situation. I would not go so far as to say they are lying, only that they are not being as clear as they could. In any case, if it's unthinkable that the Spanish Fed'n would lie, why is it acceptable to say that the UCI and the Chatenay-Malabri lab are in a conspiracy to falsify results and destroy the career of an innocent rider?
Yes, the UCI could have done better. It would certainly have helped if, rather than saying positive, they'd given an estimate of the relevant parameter with its margin for error.
Hypothetically, if we were talking about testosterone ratios, it's conceivable that what happened was:
test 1: 4.5 +/- 0.3, positive;
test 2: 4.6 +/- 1.0, inconclusive;
test 2a: (same data looked at by different people) 4.5 +/- 1.0, inconclusive;
test 3: 4.4, +/- .25, positive.
Note that in the above example, the hypothetical test results are not contradictory. Maybe something like this happened with Mayo's test... we don't know.