# Rooks confesses EPO doping after 1989



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

Here is the Velonews article:

http://www.velonews.com/article/93581/rooks-admits-to-epo-use



> However, Rooks, who also won the one-day classics Liège-Bastogne-Liège in
> 1983 and the Amstel Gold Race in 1986, insisted he had only started taking EPO after 1989 when he finished seventh overall in the Tour and won a stage.


So at least one top-ten GC on EPO by the end of 1989. Any others?

I will try to find more links.

Let's strive to keep this Lemond/Armstrong free if possible.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

Cyclingnews link:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/rooks-admits-to-epo-use

"Two other former riders of the same generation, fellow Dutch men Gert Jakobs and Matthieu Hermans, have also admitted using the drug. Hermans also won a stage in the 1989 Tour, stage 11 from Luchon to Blagnac, and ten stages of the Vuelta a España."


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Rooks actually first admitted to doping back in 2000. Said he used testosterone and amphetamines throughout his entire career. http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/results/2000/jan00/jan1news.shtml

I'd like to point out that here is someone admitting to doping in the late 1980s and 1990s for which there was no prior evidence.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

Biopace_Rules! said:


> No Prior Evidence? Rooks rode on PDM. There is plenty of evidence that there was team wide doping on PDM. Both doctors have admitted it, other riders have admitted it, Some riders left the team because of it.
> 
> Where in the article does it say that he used EPO in 89? As I see it it says *after 1989*.


That would be my perspective as well. After 1989 does not mean during 1989. At the least it means after the '89 Tour.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

Epogen was approved by the FDA in June of 1989 - it would be very unlikely riders could be using this with effect for the 1989 Tour. Epogen was never available on the Euro market (due to licensing agreements among big Pharma). Amgen introduced Aranesp into the market later, so it would be some time after the summer of 1989 that EPO made its way into the scene either through the US market or under a different Euro product. Dutch cyclist Johannes Draaijer died in Feb 1990, which I believe was the first rumored to be linked to EPO.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

also, since there was no reliable test for EPO until 2001 it is hardly surprising that there would be no 'prior evidence.' The scandals like Festina were the result of customs inspections, physical evidence (vials, etc), not testing.


----------



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

stevesbike said:


> Epogen was approved by the FDA in June of 1989 - it would be very unlikely riders could be using this with effect for the 1989 Tour. .


Somewhere in the deep recesses of my mind I remember reading that EPO had been in use prior to certification for public use. IOW they were able to get it from the trials quantities.

JSR


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

*Epo*

- The FDA is not the be-all end-all for EPO's approval...... America is NOT the only country in the world ya know. And it is a fact that America is quite slow on the up-take of new med's & procedures. 

Here's the long and short of it : Those who think that EPO was not in use, anywhere in the world prior to "approval of the FDA" has their heads buried in the proverbial sand.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

DMFT said:


> - The FDA is not the be-all end-all for EPO's approval...... America is NOT the only country in the world ya know. And it is a fact that America is quite slow on the up-take of new med's & procedures.
> 
> Here's the long and short of it : Those who think that EPO was not in use, anywhere in the world prior to "approval of the FDA" has their heads buried in the proverbial sand.


This is all just your ridiculous opinion but thanks for chiming in. Next time bring something interesting or don't post at all.


----------



## TheDon (Feb 3, 2006)

SilasCL said:


> This is all just your ridiculous opinion but thanks for chiming in. Next time bring something interesting or don't post at all.



Whoa, what's with the harsh response? What he says makes sense. EPO was most likely availble in other countries. Do you have evidence to suggest that EPO was first available in the US?


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

in the spirit of the moderator's plea for a more reasoned discourse, the burden is now on you (DMFT) to provide some documented evidence for the use of EPO by cyclists prior to 1989. For a restatement of the timeline, Amgen was awarded a world-wide patent in 1987 while the drug was still being tested, worked out a licensing deal with Johnson & Johnson to market EPO in Europe as Eprex in 1988, and was still building the facilities to mass produce EPO in 1988 in anticipation of FDA approval. So, I think it would be very hard to obtain an illicit supply prior to a wide distribution of the product in mid-1989 at the earliest. By the way, Amgen held the exclusive rights (worldwide) until 2004.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

TheDon said:


> Whoa, what's with the harsh response? What he says makes sense. EPO was most likely availble in other countries. Do you have evidence to suggest that EPO was first available in the US?


Because these guys repeatedly treat their speculation as fact and you're buying into it.

Do you have any evidence to suggest that EPO was available outside the U.S. before it was available inside the U.S.?

The documentary evidence is that EPO was approved by the FDA in June of '89. Please provide documentary evidence that it was available from another source before then.


----------



## CoffeeBean2 (Aug 6, 2005)

This article doesn't specifically refer to EPO, but it does show that drugs can be prescribed before FDA approval:

http://www.shevlinsmith.com/blog/fd...rugs-to-be-prescribed-by-health-care-prov.cfm


----------



## cyclesport45 (Dec 10, 2007)

What are the repercussions, for someone like Rooks, from admitting to doping? That was 20 years ago. Will this affect any podium results he had? Is there any precedent from others fessing up from THAT long ago?


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

TheDon said:


> Whoa, what's with the harsh response? What he says makes sense. EPO was most likely availble in other countries. Do you have evidence to suggest that EPO was first available in the US?


Why come in here and post on what you think is most likely. If you want to contribute to the discussion, bring something real, like a fact or two.

I have no evidence that EPO was first available in the US, and he has none to suggest that it was available first somewhere else. If he's going to post claiming that it was available somewhere else, the burden of proof is on him to show that.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

cyclesport45 said:


> What are the repercussions, for someone like Rooks, from admitting to doping? That was 20 years ago. Will this affect any podium results he had? Is there any precedent from others fessing up from THAT long ago?


No repercussions, no change in any of his results.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

stevesbike said:


> in the spirit of the moderator's plea for a more reasoned discourse, the burden is now on you (DMFT) to provide some documented evidence for the use of EPO by cyclists prior to 1989. For a restatement of the timeline, Amgen was awarded a world-wide patent in 1987 while the drug was still being tested, worked out a licensing deal with Johnson & Johnson to market EPO in Europe as Eprex in 1988, and was still building the facilities to mass produce EPO in 1988 in anticipation of FDA approval. So, I think it would be very hard to obtain an illicit supply prior to a wide distribution of the product in mid-1989 at the earliest. By the way, Amgen held the exclusive rights (worldwide) until 2004.


Anyone know when the cheap Chinese version became available?


----------



## loudog (Jul 22, 2008)

epogen was approved in 1989 and amgen was the only producer. although it may have been possible to get research stock of epo before 1989, its highly improbable especially in large quantities. i think it would be safe to assume that people werent using epo before its release. most european riders bought their epo in swiss pharmacies and in 1989 and 1990 the only product would have been epogen made by amgen.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

loudog said:


> epogen was approved in 1989 and amgen was the only producer. although it may have been possible to get research stock of epo before 1989, its highly improbable especially in large quantities. i think it would be safe to assume that people werent using epo before its release. most european riders bought their epo in swiss pharmacies and in 1989 and 1990 the only product would have been epogen made by amgen.


Although in the Balco case they were using stuff that was never even approved. And repeatedly we have seen dopers (and the doping infrastructure in the Pre-Festina Era) were often trying stuff that was in the trial stage. Probably still are. We are seeing the date with which EPO was used moving up. I wouldn't be surprised if it was acquired during the trials.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

not until the early 2000s - they had to learn how to develop an efficient manufacturing process on their own - most of it was originally for their domestic market.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

Coolhand said:


> Although in the Balco case they were using stuff that was never even approved. And repeatedly we have seen dopers (and the doping infrastructure in the Pre-Festina Era) were often trying stuff that was in the trial stage. Probably still are. We are seeing the date with which EPO was used moving up. I wouldn't be surprised if it was acquired during the trials.


possible, but it would require deep pockets. EPO is not trivial to produce beyond quantities required for clinical trials and limited production for trials usually involves tight chain of custody protocols. Besides, blood packing is much more straightforward and effective. Likely a lot of the deaths linked to EPO in the early days were actually blood packing ones done badly


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

Coolhand said:


> Although in the Balco case they were using stuff that was never even approved. And repeatedly we have seen dopers (and the doping infrastructure in the Pre-Festina Era) were often trying stuff that was in the trial stage. Probably still are. We are seeing the date with which EPO was used moving up. I wouldn't be surprised if it was acquired during the trials.


BALCO was paying guys to develop drugs on their own, the drugs were never FDA approved because they were underground. The situation is also different from EPO in that the production process is much more complex for EPO.

I don't remember them using trial stage drugs in the 90s, but it's certainly possible.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

stevesbike said:


> in the spirit of the moderator's plea for a more reasoned discourse, the burden is now on you (DMFT) to provide some documented evidence for the use of EPO by cyclists prior to 1989. For a restatement of the timeline, Amgen was awarded a world-wide patent in 1987 while the drug was still being tested, worked out a licensing deal with Johnson & Johnson to market EPO in Europe as Eprex in 1988, and was still building the facilities to mass produce EPO in 1988 in anticipation of FDA approval. So, I think it would be very hard to obtain an illicit supply prior to a wide distribution of the product in mid-1989 at the earliest. By the way, Amgen held the exclusive rights (worldwide) until 2004.


Your timeline is not complete. The first patent on EPO was actually granted to Genetics Institute, not Amgen. Amgen got its own patent later the same year (1987). Both companies were working on EPO at the same time, and they were tangled up in lawsuits for years. Eventually the FDA gave Amgen the USA market, largely because they were six months ahead in production, but GI produced its own EPO products, Recormon and Epogin, for Europe and Japan.

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4677195.html (Genetics Institute)
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4703008.html (Amgen)


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

loudog said:


> epogen was approved in 1989 and amgen was the only producer...in 1989 and 1990 the only product would have been epogen made by amgen.


See my timeline post above. Both Recormon and Epogin were on the market in 1990 and weren't made by Amgen. Genetics Institute tried to market Marogen in the USA in 1989 and 1990 but the FDA would not allow it.


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

This is funny. 
Pro's have doctors that have access to pre-approved drugs right now, why would you think it would be any different 20 years ago?


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

mtbbmet said:


> This is funny.
> Pro's have doctors that have access to pre-approved drugs right now, why would you think it would be any different 20 years ago?


Do you have anything to support this?


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

mtbbmet said:


> This is funny.
> Pro's have doctors that have access to pre-approved drugs right now, why would you think it would be any different 20 years ago?


that's not true. Maybe a drug in a late phase 3 trial (at the discretion of the manufacturer) but doctors do not in general have access to pre-approved drugs outside of having a patient participate in the trial for that drug. That's the whole reason for FDA regulation.


----------



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

I take full resonsibility for taking us down this path while depending solely on my frequently-faulty memory. Please accept my apologies for failing to document my assertion.

I have found a 2001 issue of Bloodline magazine, focusing on testing for blood doping in sports. http://static.cjp.com/gems/blood/BLR13.pdf

Verbruggen stipulates, in relation the establishment of the hematrocrit level of 50:
"In January, 1997, my organization, the UCI, introduced a health protection program to address the doping problem – specifically that of EPO."​ 
In the Parisotto/Ashenden article it is stated:
"The original practice of autologous and/or homologous blood doping was superseded with the commercial availability of recombinant human erythropoietin (r-HuEPO), highlighted by the infamous 1998 Tour de France “drug busts.”"​ 
I'll see if I can find a more direct reference to the use of "trials" quantities, but these statements indicate that cyclists might have used pre-production EPO.

JSR


----------



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

This FIFA document, says:The availability of recombinant EPO (rhEPO) in 1987 in Europe made it clear that this ergogenic hormone would be used illicitly in endurance sports. "

JSR* 
*


----------



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

This paper only aludes the rumor of early EPO usage in passing, while discussing in a more scientific aspects of it.

"Even before​​​​rHuEPO was marketed, one suspected the
possibility of abusive use by athletes seeking to artificially
enhance their performance, up to the point when rumors​
and anonymous accusations on its illicit use came out."


----------



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

Ok, so I haven't been able to back up my assertion. Given that there were no tests available to detect EPO while it was going through clinical trials, I don't suppose I ever will!

In any case, my quick review of the literature indicates that those concerned with doping (IOC, WADA, UCI, "ball sport" leagues, etc.) were worried about the eventual availability of EPO long before it was commercially available. There are rumors that some form of EPO was being used prior to commercial availability, but there is no way to verify.

I don't work in the pharm industry so I can only guess how pre-release mainstream drugs come into the hands of athletes. I'm happy to call my assertion an un-verified rumor.

JSR


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

I tried to follow up some of the citations in the stuff you referenced but kept hitting dead ends. Good effort nonetheless.


----------



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

SilasCL said:


> but kept hitting dead ends.


See if these direct URLs will work

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/medical/dopingbroschure2_e_55959.pdf

http://www.scielo.br/pdf/rbme/v9n3/17269.pdf


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

JSR said:


> See if these direct URLs will work
> 
> http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/medical/dopingbroschure2_e_55959.pdf
> 
> http://www.scielo.br/pdf/rbme/v9n3/17269.pdf


Sorry, I was unclear. I read the docs you linked to, but in the case of the 2nd one I tried to find some of the relevant papers they cite, but they were obscure and I couldn't find the full text.


----------



## loudog (Jul 22, 2008)

mtbbmet said:


> This is funny.
> Pro's have doctors that have access to pre-approved drugs right now, why would you think it would be any different 20 years ago?


this kinda stuff is madness. drugs in the pipeline are nearly impossible to get ones hands on. theres 2 chances of people having epo before it hit the market 1. slim. 2. none.


----------



## loudog (Jul 22, 2008)

nevermind


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

loudog said:


> this kinda stuff is madness. drugs in the pipeline are nearly impossible to get ones hands on. theres 2 chances of people having epo before it hit the market 1. slim. 2. none.


Scientists first purified EPO from human urine in 1977, but it was not a method that could be used to mass produce a drug for market. That was the problem, which was solved within 10 years. In that 10 year period, it's possible that certain doctors, such as Conconi and Ferrari, anticipated a product and were actively seeking it out. I'm not saying that's what happened, but let's not pretend EPO dropped out of the sky in 1987. It was not a surprise.

From the Genetics Institute patent (link above):



> The preparation of EPO products has generally been via the concentration and purification of urine from patients exhibiting high EPO levels, such as those suffering from aplastic anemia and like diseases. ...The limited supply of such urine is an obstacle to the practical use of EPO, and thus it is highly desirable to prepare EPO products from the urine of healthy humans. A problem in the use of urine from healthy humans is the low content of EPO therein in comparison with that from anemic patients. In addition, the urine of healty individuals contains certain inhibiting factors which act against erthropoiesis in sufficiently high concentration so that a satisfactory therapeutic effect would be obtained from EPO derived therefrom only following significant purification.
> 
> EPO can also be recovered from sheep blood plasma, and the separation of EPO from such blood plasma has provided satisfactorily potent and stable water-soluble preparations. ...Sheep EPO would, however, be expected to be antigenic in humans.
> 
> Thus, while EPO is a desirable therapeutic agent, conventional isolation and purification techniques, used with natural supply sources, are inadequate for the mass production of this compound.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

The Rhyner article is from 1988 and mentions in the last sentence the fact that EPO was still in early clinical trials. My only point in all this is that it is very doubtful that EPO made it's way into doping until the early 90s - once the drug is approved it goes to being the most successful biotech drug in existence and would have been easily available then.

For all the EPO talk, developments in blood packing would still make it preferable for a lot of reasons (once the problem of storage was dealt with). My guess is that carefully regimed blood packing is the main method these days.


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

loudog said:


> this kinda stuff is madness. drugs in the pipeline are nearly impossible to get ones hands on. theres 2 chances of people having epo before it hit the market 1. slim. 2. none.


I work in health care, and I have two freinds who are cancer research doctors, another who is a doctor in pulmonary function research. This trial stuff is not as hard to get your hands on as you guys like to believe. 
And everyone seems to be all hung up on FDA regualtions and how stuff is done in north america. Why?
How does that have anyting to do with what happened in Europe 20 years ago? And FDA regulations were alot more lax 20 years ago than they are today, not that they have anything to do with this issue as the problem was in Europe.
There was an article in ProCycling last fall about some new trial drug that can improve performance by 20-40%, they were saying that the UCI/WADA is already trying to find a test for it because they suspect it's already in use in the Pro ranks.
I'll see if I can find the article.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

mtbbmet said:


> I work in health care, and I have two freinds who are cancer research doctors, another who is a doctor in pulmonary function research. This trial stuff is not as hard to get your hands on as you guys like to believe.
> And everyone seems to be all hung up on FDA regualtions and how stuff is done in north america. Why?
> How does that have anyting to do with what happened in Europe 20 years ago? And FDA regulations were alot more lax 20 years ago than they are today, not that they have anything to do with this issue as the problem was in Europe.
> There was an article in ProCycling last fall about some new trial drug that can improve performance by 20-40%, they were saying that the UCI/WADA is already trying to find a test for it because they suspect it's already in use in the Pro ranks.
> I'll see if I can find the article.


Why is it important to speculate that EPO was being used before any actual or anecdotal evidence suggests it was being used?

Most everyone agrees that the Indurain era ushered in widespread EPO use. IF you could provide evidence that this is not so, what choice would anyone have, except to believe it.

The fact is, that there is no evidence though, either in Rook's confession to have used EPO after '89, or anywhere else for that matter.

Feel free to speculate all you like. Just realize that it's speculation, with absolutely no fact to back it up.

The burden is on you to provide anything of substance.


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

lookrider said:


> Why is it important to speculate that EPO was being used before any actual or anecdotal evidence suggests it was being used?


Because one of the first thing guys like you say when defending your hero is that he was before the "EPO era", when he was clearly winning at the start of it. So Rooks says that he was doing it in 1990. Who beat a doping Rooks in 1990 by over 40min? Remember that Rooks also said he was on anphetamines and testosterone though out his career.

But I guess your hero was just that good to overcome all that being so clean and all. It's amazing to me that a guy can go from being 2nd in 88, and 7th in 89 before EPO (according to you anyway) was in mass use by the peloton. But then in 1990 finish 42 minutes down while being on EPO, but still before anyone else was doing it because that came after a certain someone stop winning.

How can you be so naive?


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

FWIW I find it interesting in general to see the effect of the Peloton. To do that you need an accurate timetable for its arrival in the elite big money teams/riders to the general Peloton. Kind of like _when they switched from this form of doping to this form of doping the following happened_. Also once you know when something came in, and what the change would be, you can then look for patterns matching that.

At least that is the interest for me. So, are saying Big Mig was dirty? Did he ever get caught or have a failed test? I would like to read more on it.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

lookrider said:


> Why is it important to speculate that EPO was being used before any actual or anecdotal evidence suggests it was being used?
> 
> Most everyone agrees that the Indurain era ushered in widespread EPO use. IF you could provide evidence that this is not so, what choice would anyone have, except to believe it.
> 
> ...


A 1995 Dutch investigation into PDM team doctor Wim Sanders, made public in 1997, found documents in his house that showed that he bought at least 178 ampules of Eprex between 1990 and 1995. Yes, 1990. The drug was released to the market in 1989, and in less than a year, there was already organized team doping with it. These are facts, not speculation.

Why is this important? It's important because it moves the start of what you call the "Indurain era" to before Indurain. And that means we can now question the performances of big name riders in 1990. We know some were already on EPO in 1990, such as Rooks.

By the way, I'm happy to see that you are now firmly opposed to speculation in this forum.


----------



## kbiker3111 (Nov 7, 2006)

Coolhand said:


> At least that is the interest for me. So, are saying Big Mig was dirty? Did he ever get caught or have a failed test? I would like to read more on it.


+1

It is often assumed (very logically) that Indurain doped and ushered in the era of big TTers who could climb (Riis, Ullrich), but I've never seen any actual evidence (circumstatial or otherwise) that he actually doped.


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

mohair_chair said:


> By the way, I'm happy to see that you are now firmly opposed to speculation in this forum.


LOL, funny how that works hey?


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

mohair_chair said:


> By the way, I'm happy to see that you are now firmly opposed to speculation in this forum.


I've always been. It'd be nice if you joined me.:aureola:


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

kbiker3111 said:


> +1
> 
> It is often assumed (very logically) that Indurain doped and ushered in the era of big TTers who could climb (Riis, Ullrich), but I've never seen any actual evidence (circumstatial or otherwise) that he actually doped.


Clue....Look at his "medical program" and the doctors who administered it.:idea:


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

mtbbmet said:


> Because one of the first thing guys like you say when defending your hero is that he was before the "EPO era", when he was clearly winning at the start of it.


Wasn't he (my hero:lol: ) clearly winning 10 years before the start of it.



mtbbmet said:


> So Rooks says that he was doing it in 1990. Who beat a doping Rooks in 1990 by over 40min? Remember that Rooks also said he was on anphetamines and testosterone though out his career.


This is what you've got? Iban Mayo doped thoughout his career. He was a threat to win the Tour in 2003, and and even bigger threat in 2004 when he wound up abandoning. Who knows exactly what happened to Rooks? Evidently, doped or not, he wasn't on top of his form. Maybe he got sick?



mtbbmet said:


> But I guess your hero was just that good to overcome all that being so clean and all. It's amazing to me that a guy can go from being 2nd in 88, and 7th in 89 before EPO (according to you anyway) was in mass use by the peloton. But then in 1990 finish 42 minutes down while being on EPO, but still before anyone else was doing it because that came after a certain someone stop winning.
> 
> How can you be so naive?


Maybe Rooks hadn't perfected his timing and dosage yet. He still had a 2nd in the World Champ's in him.

Swart alluded to the fact that you had to time your dosage correctly to benefit from EPO. Anyway, at least Rooks didn't die from his screwup. He might have raced better in the '90 Tour without EPO. After all, as you pointed out, he had had some success there.

I guess "my hero" was that good. Any more speculation from that fertile mind of yours?


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

SilasCL said:


> This is all just your ridiculous opinion but thanks for chiming in. Next time bring something interesting or don't post at all.



- I'm offended by your response. You should be put on vacation. 

And yes, it is still naive to think EPO was not around pre-Amgen. Take a quick spin aroud Google and research it.


----------



## kbiker3111 (Nov 7, 2006)

lookrider said:


> Clue....Look at his "medical program" and the doctors who administered it.:idea:


Care to give me more than a clue? What was his "medical program" and who was his doctor?


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

kbiker3111 said:


> Care to give me more than a clue? What was his "medical program" and who was his doctor?


No, that's your homework assignment. The info is out there. As a matter of fact, Bigpinkt posted the info on the doping forum before he was banned for who knows what.


----------



## kbiker3111 (Nov 7, 2006)

lookrider said:


> No, that's your homework assignment. The info is out there. As a matter of fact, Bigpinkt posted the info on the doping forum before he was banned for who knows what.


I don't get you anti doing zealots. Am I the enemy? Why are you acting coy over a straightforward question? If you would act more friendly, most people would treat you more nicely.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

kbiker3111 said:


> I don't get you anti doing zealots. Am I the enemy? Why are you acting coy over a straightforward question? If you would act more friendly, most people would treat you more nicely.


You're funny...

Conconi and Sabino Padilla.

Type in Sabino Padilla on google and doping automatically pops up.


----------



## kbiker3111 (Nov 7, 2006)

lookrider said:


> You're funny...
> 
> Conconi and Sabino Padilla.
> 
> Type in Sabino Padilla on google and doping automatically pops up.


Thank you.


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

lookrider said:


> Clue....Look at his "medical program" and the doctors who administered it.:idea:


That whole "oppossed to speculation" thing didn't last long.


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

lookrider said:


> This is what you've got? Iban Mayo doped thoughout his career. He was a threat to win the Tour in 2003, and and even bigger threat in 2004 when he wound up abandoning. Who knows exactly what happened to Rooks? Evidently, doped or not, he wasn't on top of his form. Maybe he got sick?


Here's the flaw in your argument.
Mayo doped throughout his career racing against a bunch of other doped up riders. What you have been saying is that very no riders were on EPO in 89-90. But here's Rooks, a podium finisher only two years prior, saying that he was doing it but still finished well back. If EPO gives you the massive boost that it's reported to do don't you think that he would have finished a little higher up? Sure he could have crashed, like Mayo in 04, or he could have been sick. But that is also assuming he was the ONLY guy on EPO in 90. I find that hard to belive that only one guy in the peloton was able to figure out the EPO was available and could give you a huge boost. And that one guy was 40 min back.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

mtbbmet said:


> Here's the flaw in your argument.


Look, I wouldn't even call what I made, an argument, because it's against your speculation and assumptions which you regard as rock solid fact. Do you really think incredibly shaky speculation on your part is worth discrediting with much thought?



mtbbmet said:


> Mayo doped throughout his career racing against a bunch of other doped up riders. What you have been saying is that very no riders were on EPO in 89-90. .


Really, I've been saying the above? First of all, Rooks said he doped with EPO *after 1989.*





mtbbmet said:


> Sure he could have crashed, like Mayo in 04, or he could have been sick. But that is also assuming he was the ONLY guy on EPO in 90..


It is????




mtbbmet said:


> I find that hard to belive that only one guy in the peloton was able to figure out the EPO was available and could give you a huge boost. And that one guy was 40 min back.


You're building arguments on speculation and assumptions that I never made.

The fact is that Rooks said he used EPO after 1989. You do realize that Mottet came in fourth in 1991 and by all accounts he was clean. Is it a fair assumption to say that more guys were using EPO in 1991, than 1989 or 1990?

It's entirely possible that Rooks didn't take EPO properly in 1990. Swart talked about his first use of EPO in the Tour de Suisse and it weakened him so much he couldn't even finish the race because he didn't take the drug long enough before.


----------

