You have just placed yourself in an untenable position.
CERA is a third generation erythropoietic stimulating agent and did not exist back in the 80s. Agency approval was only obtained by Roche in 2007-08 time frame. Even with a long clinical development timeline, it's safe to say that it did not exist in the 80s.
We are of course all aware that CERA is a 3rd gen. EPO agent, and so logic dictates that until EPO became detectable, there was no need for anyone to invent CERA. However, if a drug-taking athlete assumes that a reputable test for artificial EPO will eventually be discovered, then it makes sense for him and his chemist friends to guess the nature of that test, and invent a new drug to thwart it.
The drug cheats that don't get caught are the ones who are at least one step ahead of the authorities. This applies as much now as it did two decades ago. And drug cheats don't really care much for following all those clinical development protocols that tend to slow things down a bit too much (like a decade or two).
I personally doubt that anyone took CERA in the 80s, or had the technology to imagine it. But my doubts without proof are baseless. It is at least theoretically possible for someone to have taken CERA way back then.
Just because no-one from 1984 was ever caught cheating with CERA does not mean it never happened. Or, to put it another way... absence of evidence does not guarantee evidence of absence.
My role was to play devil's advocate, which is to argue a point (that I don't necessarily have to believe) in order to test the logic of the argument. I think I've done that...
So is my argument untenable? - Clearly not. Is my statement valid? - I think it might be somewhat tenuous, but not spurious.
