With doping back in the headlines after the news of Davide Rebellin and Stefan Schumacher's positives at the 2008 Olympic Games, we take a look at the substance they tested positive for - CERA.

CERA or Continuous Erythropoiesis Receptor Activator is a new form of EPO, created by the Swiss company Roche, that has been created to help dialysis patients or people with kidney problems.

The drug stimulates the kidneys to produce EPO which in turn stimulates the bone marrow to increase the creation of red blood cells. More red blood cells allow the body to carry more oxygen and so increases an athlete's performance.

CERA, or Mircera as it is known commercially, has been approved for medical use in Switzerland and Australia and is close to final approval across Europe.

Roche applied to sell the drug in the USA last year but the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) refused to approve the drug for use in the USA because it infringed patents belonging to the original creator and producer of EPO, the US-based Amgen, that sponsors the Tour of California.

CERA offers 'benefits' over older forms of EPO because it is has a slower release rate or creation of red blood cells in the body. For patients that means fewer injections, perhaps even just once a month, and lower health care costs for hospitals.

For athletes it means they can take the blood booster less frequently and so reduce the risk of being caught because EPO is difficult to detect a few days after it has been injected.

A test for EPO was first introduced for the 2000 Sydney Olympics. CERA is on the WADA list of banned products but it seems that riders caught during 2008 thought that the test was unable to find CERA.

A test for CERA was first introduced in professional cycling on samples taken during the 2008 Tour de France.

CERA POSITIVES IN CYCLING
There have now been several high-profile positive tests for CERA in the pro peloton since the first riders - Riccardo Ricco, Leonardo Piepoli, Bernhard Kohl and Stefan Schumacher - were caught during the 2008 Tour de France.

Retro-testing of 2008 Olympic games samples also turned out two positive results - Stefan Schumacher and Davide Rebellin.

issoisso wrote:
*singing*
Valverde's f***ed, Valverde's f***ed....c'mon, clap your hands now....


Aheem. The UCI has joined CONI for the May 11th hearing of Valverde as joint prosecutors.

This means 2 things:

1. Valverde will now have to defend himself against the prosecution of 2 entities
2. If he's suspended, the ban will be worldwide *snicker*

Thank you. Now you say that cycling in the states is strong enough to thrive without the stars. Something that was your main point at the start. I was a bit blunt in my last post on that part thinking you would probably retract to saying that and it worked. Nice job. I think you made enough points to hold valid that racing in the states will benefit for keeping the pros away from smaller competitions.

It is interesting that you think for example sweden has it different then the states. You made a strong argument before about sponsors not wanting to sponsor if the pros dont ride in that country. Swedish sponsors of course mostly aim for swedish market and therefor have no interest if there are many races in europe cause there target audience is in sweden. How is that different from your arguments for America? still cycling in sweden is doing pretty good. We have had some teams lately and got a good generation of riders coming out.

Since you seem to use Europe as one of your strongest arguments and it only makes sense towards around 10% of the countries in europe of wich follow this rule it comes across as pretty weak.

The bias of the article is the same bias that you show in your post. You say it is a witch hunt of Lance. That people are after America or that should get special treatment and using directly faulty arguments mostly based on ignorance and a lack of knowledge. Since you are both biased in the same way i do understand that you do not see it.

Levi4life wrote:
https://velonews.com/article/91397/how...entionally

Exactly my point.

Levi4life wrote:
boork wrote:


Fuck me. You are impossible. were did you learn to make bullshit up like that. maybe you should learn to read.



it seems hopeless with you. Sweden is not the same as the United States. Get that misconception out of your head. The United states is home to 320 million people and is 3000 miles across with 3000 miles of ocean in between the continental US and Continental europe. American cycling is bigger than Swedish cycling. there are more races, more racers, more team's etc etc etc. There is no motivation for American sponsors to up their support if there is no upward mobility for their team within the US. If their riders cannot race because there are only 3 UCI races per year, then they might as well stay continental. that is not furthering cycling worldwide, it is placing an unnecessary limit on international cycling.




I am struggling to understand this bit. What I gather from this bit is that only 10 % of Europe follows the rule, which I know isn't true because I have been told that the rule has only been ignored in the US.



I call Bullshit, because I made it clear that I am no fan of Lance. This is the stereotypical stereotyping which i mentioned in the post. This is the "fallback position" which people use when they have no better arguments. Bullshit.



fuck. Defend the rule. I type something and you try to pick it apart and try to twist it into whatever serves your purpose(whatever the purpose is baffles me) The rule is what this is about and only you seem to care about defending it. Why should we keep this rule. Stick to the point and try not to make some bullshit up about something that is seemingly irrelevant and don't try to twist my words into whatever nefarious form serves your unknown goals.

Since you seem to use Europe as one of your strongest arguments and it only makes sense towards around 10% of the countries in europe of wich follow this rule it comes across as pretty weak.


I am struggling to understand this bit. What I gather from this bit is that only 10 % of Europe follows the rule, which I know isn't true because I have been told that the rule has only been ignored in the US.

Ruben wrote:
6 months would be ridicolous. Ofcourse, when Lance opens his trap about it, the UCI suddenly has to put it's best foot forward

schleck93 wrote:
1 month would be fair.

doddy13 wrote:

agreed, 2 months is the maximum.