# Michael Boogerd - retired, banned, scrubbed



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Michael Boogerd handed two-year ban, sees results scrubbed - VeloNews.com

_Boogerd, who has worked on and off within pro cycling since his retirement from racing, admitted to 10 years of doping, from 1997 to 2007, in an interview with Dutch television in 2013. 

“I was always alone and am ready to tell my own story and not about other riders or coaches,” he said.​_
The omerta continues.


----------



## GKSki (Nov 12, 2014)

So...lab fight with Armstrong at '99 Amstel Gold?


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Yes but we can all still hate Armstrong more than any other doper during the doped up doping era because Boogerd didn't take EPO into France one year.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)




----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Local Hero said:


> Yes but we can all still hate Armstrong more than any other doper during the doped up doping era because Boogerd didn't take EPO into France one year.


Was Boogerd one of the lives Armstrong ruined????

It's too bad we don't have Armstrong and/or Landis'ssssss'ss opinions on this. ...er wait, saints be praised!


----------



## GKSki (Nov 12, 2014)

Local Hero said:


>


Armstrong looked stronger and heavier than later on in his high cadence days. Not too smart with the leadout.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

GKSki said:


> Armstrong looked stronger and heavier than later on in his high cadence days. Not too smart with the leadout.


probably the only person ever outsmarted by Boogerd.


----------



## GKSki (Nov 12, 2014)

LOL...I don't think Armstrong ever won a 2-up going back to his amateur days.


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> Yes but we can all still hate Armstrong more than any other doper during the doped up doping era because Boogerd didn't take EPO into France one year.


That must be the crowd that was hanging out with the ones who called the Boogerd investigation a witch hunt.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

It's crazy that Boogard kept doping through 2007 when everyone else quit in 2006.


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> It's crazy that Boogard kept doping through 2007 when everyone else quit in 2006.


Except Lance who was using transfusions in '09 & '10. And hinting that he was dirty while doing half ironmans, etc.

So weird, so SO WEIRD.


----------



## pedalbiker (Nov 23, 2014)

Local Hero said:


> Yes but we can all still hate Armstrong more than any other doper during the doped up doping era because Boogerd didn't take EPO into France one year.


Except Boogerd wasn't a total asshat. Or if he was, it wasn't made prominent in English media.


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

On this one thing, I agree with Lance. It's BS.

I think the ban should be much, much longer. Long enough he would never again be considered for even the most basic position with any cycling team.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Poor Michael. 

https://youtu.be/3_22bt74jjw?t=1h39m11s


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Alaska Mike said:


> I think the ban should be much, much longer. Long enough he would never again be considered for even the most basic position with any cycling team.


Too bad this isn't the case with Vino and Astana. How many GTs have they won in the last couple of years?????


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

Local Hero said:


> Yes but we can all still hate Armstrong more than any other doper during the doped up doping era because Boogerd didn't take EPO into France one year.


:lol:

In the future I must remember to not read your posts while having a mouthful of coffee for fear of spitting it out all over my scream from bursting out laughing.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

Keep grinding guys. One of these days that axe is going to be sharp.


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

spade2you said:


> Too bad this isn't the case with Vino and Astana. How many GTs have they won in the last couple of years?????


I agree, but sometimes you take what you can get.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Alaska Mike said:


> I agree, but sometimes you take what you can get.


Astana is certainly taking all the results they can get. 

Boogerd's team was pocket change compared to Astana.


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

"Pocket change" is an apt phrase.

Still, one more confirmed mega-doper out of the adult supervision ranks (for a time) can be counted as moving in the right direction.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

I suppose it's a start. Like Michael McDonald once said, "such a long way to goooooooo."

IDK, it seems that it's easy to focus on how evil 'ol One Ball is. We still have not caught a big fish in a really long time. The occasional Boogerd and Menchov get a penalty, but largely keep their best results.


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

spade2you said:


> IDK, it seems that it's easy to focus on how evil 'ol One Ball is. We still have not caught a big fish in a really long time. The occasional Boogerd and Menchov get a penalty, but largely keep their best results.


Now I feel old... 2012/13 is a really long time ago? Considering the 7 or 8 year statute of limitation laws, the next big scandal isn't due for another 4 or 5 years.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

DrSmile said:


> Now I feel old... 2012/13 is a really long time ago? Considering the 7 or 8 year statute of limitation laws, the next big scandal isn't due for another 4 or 5 years.


The last real top shelf rider in their prime was Contador during the Carne Astana SNAFU. Most of the folks punished in recent times weren't top shelf riders or near the end of their career. 

I would predict someone like Michael Rogers who raced during the dirty era would have something surface and some virtually unknown rider from Spain or Italy who got results all of the sudden.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

but there was no 'team program' @ Rabobank. 

Testimony sheds light on Leinders, Rabobank?s systematic doping - VeloNews.com

Rasmussen: Entire 2007 Rabobank Tour de France team doped | Cyclingnews.com

and the Doc went on to Sky


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Two blood bags during the tour? Definitely not a level playing field.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

spade2you said:


> , it seems that it's easy to focus on how evil 'ol One Ball is.


Yeah, It is odd how some try so hard to bring Armstrong into every doping story. Boogie gets sanctioned but all some want to do is figure out how to talk about Lance. Some kind of weird obsession.


----------



## GKSki (Nov 12, 2014)

I'd say he's still skating. Bet Greg would agree. Maybe it's because he was overly worshiped by wannabes.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

atpjunkie said:


> but there was no 'team program' @ Rabobank.
> 
> Testimony sheds light on Leinders, Rabobank?s systematic doping - VeloNews.com
> 
> ...


Boogie started transfusions in 2003? He was late to the game, USPS did them in 2000. 3 year head start. At least Boogie started before Telekom. They didn't do them till 2004. 

Those Euros, such lazy slackers


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Yeah, It is odd how some try so hard to bring Armstrong into every doping story. Boogie gets sanctioned but all some want to do is figure out how to talk about Lance. Some kind of weird obsession.


Who are you trying to not mention?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Boogie started transfusions in 2003? He was late to the game, USPS did them in 2000. 3 year head start. At least Boogie started before Telekom. They didn't do them till 2004.
> 
> Those Euros, such lazy slackers


Seems odd that Boogerd started transfusions in 2003. His best results were prior to that. 

Didn't TVM infuse the wrong bags in 1998? 

Very odd that Telekom had such strong results prior to transfusions as well. 

I think Kelme also botched a few transfusions prior to 2003.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Boogie started transfusions in 2003? He was late to the game, USPS did them in 2000. 3 year head start. At least Boogie started before Telekom. They didn't do them till 2004.
> 
> Those Euros, such lazy slackers


started transfusions in 03, were on EPO before then

You are insinuating that somehow they were still able to compete clean....

and all of them with miraculous near 50 H Crits

transfusions were old, Eddie B era. They fell out of favor because EPO was easier/cheaper. Some people jumped back to transfusions as testing got better, others waited. Doesn't indicate anyone was clean. 
Does it matter whether your 10% bump in H Crit comes from a shot or a transfusion?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

atpjunkie said:


> started transfusions in 03, were on EPO before then
> 
> You are insinuating that somehow they were still able to compete clean....
> 
> ...


Agreed. Personally, I consider the teams that fell mysteriously ill as evidence of transfusion errors. Lack of evidence just means they did it better than other teams. 

Also, since when should we believe riders who admitted they doped? Didn't a few guys admit they only tried it a few times, only to have it revealed that they doped their entire careers?????


----------



## GKSki (Nov 12, 2014)

Transfusions were legal back in the day of the LA Olympics with Eddie B. Together with Moscow boycotting meant a lot of hardware for the US team.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

atpjunkie said:


> started transfusions in 03, were on EPO before then
> 
> You are insinuating that somehow they were still able to compete clean....
> 
> ...


It appears you do not know that by the 3rd week of a GT the average Hct drops by 13%. A key to winning the Tour is to prevent that from happening.

In 1999 teams were scared of the police raids and that doping had been criminalized in France. The result was few teams brought dope into France. USPS wasn't scared, they hired Motoman to bring them drugs. The retro tests prove this. There were very few positives in 99 compared to 98 and after the prologue almost all of them belonged to Armstrong or his USPS teammates

In 2000 the EPO test came out. Teams were scared to use EPO during the Tour as there were daily tests. lance did not have to worry about this. 

The facts are clear. During the 1999, 2000, 2003 Tours Armstrong was able to keep his Hct at 50 while others were not. He had a clear, competitive advantage. 

Note what happened in 2003. Ulrich had started working with Fuentes and suddenly is almost beating Armstrong. In fact if he had not had a bad transfusion and lost a bunch of time he would have won. For his transfusions Fuentes was using a former MTB racer and a guy with Alzheimers while Lance was using the head of the UCI's dope testing in Belgium. USADA called it 

"the most sophisticated, professionalised and successful doping program that sport has ever seen"

Travis was right


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

He might have narrowly beaten Armstrong in 2003 if the final TT were on dry roads and he didn't crash. Ulrich wasn't on T-Mobile that year.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

spade2you said:


> He might have narrowly beaten Armstrong in 2003 if the final TT were on dry roads and he didn't crash. Ulrich wasn't on T-Mobile that year.


He lost more time earlier in the race.

Yes, he was on Team Coast. It didn't matter though. Jan had not been part of the Telekom team program since 1998. Rudy felt it was too conservative. He was right. The team doctors thought transfusions were too risky. They didn't start using them until 2004, four years after Armatrong and the rest of USPS


----------



## Handbrake (May 29, 2012)

Local Hero said:


> Who are you trying to not mention?


You are wrong man, this thread has not turned into a Lance thread at all.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> He lost more time earlier in the race.
> 
> Yes, he was on Team Coast. It didn't matter though. Jan had not been part of the Telekom team program since 1998. Rudy felt it was too conservative. He was right. The team doctors thought transfusions were too risky. They didn't start using them until 2004, four years after Armatrong and the rest of USPS


T-Mobile seems to get sold short because they only took home the big prize twice. US Postal never supported a sprinter and never had multiple GC riders, as well as plenty of stage wins.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

GKSki said:


> Transfusions were legal back in the day of the LA Olympics with Eddie B. Together with Moscow boycotting meant a lot of hardware for the US team.


I see Eddie almost every Saturday. He's still coaching. Lots of state and nat champs jerseys at his workouts


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

spade2you said:


> T-Mobile seems to get sold short because they only took home the big prize twice. US Postal never supported a sprinter and never had multiple GC riders, as well as plenty of stage wins.


East Germans and former Soviets. Jan, Kloden, Vino, etc... all probably had a decade head start on any non Warsaw Pact cyclist. Those guys had been on coaching and doping programs before their 10th birthdays.
The debate has dissolved into "Well he cheated better" - agreed
In a game of cheats someone always does. They are still all a bunch of cheats.

you cheat at cards and rob a table of their money, a new guys sits down and cleans you out with a better grift and then you call foul


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

atpjunkie said:


> The debate has dissolved into "Well he cheated better" - agreed
> In a game of cheats someone always does. They are still all a bunch of cheats.
> 
> you cheat at cards and rob a table of their money, a new guys sits down and cleans you out with a better grift and then you call foul


I don't disagree. There has always been champion cheats. Gewiss, Riis, Pantani, PDM, USPS. 

My point is clear, there was not a level playing field. Some teams were significantly ahead of others in methods, protection, and willingness to take risks.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

spade2you said:


> T-Mobile seems to get sold short because they only took home the big prize twice. US Postal never supported a sprinter and never had multiple GC riders, as well as plenty of stage wins.


in 1996 Riis was willing to take huge risks with his health. Much more then other riders. He took twice as much EPO and HGH as his teammates and had an Hct of 64%. No wonder he dropped to 7th as soon as the 50% rule was introduced. 

No level playing field there. Many riders used EPO that year but few teams would allow riders to have such high Hct.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I don't disagree. There has always been champion cheats. Gewiss, Riis, Pantani, PDM, USPS.
> 
> My point is clear, there was not a level playing field. Some teams were significantly ahead of others in methods, protection, and willingness to take risks.


no argument there, they were the best cheats among cheats
to truly know their advantage we'd need to see each teams riders H Crits for each week. If everyone was falling off in week 3 except some exceptions then you have an advantage. But a 50 H Crit via transfusion vs a 50 via dope is level. 

and before USPS/Disco/Radio Shack T Kom was the king of cheats.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

atpjunkie said:


> no argument there, they were the best cheats among cheats
> to truly know their advantage we'd need to see each teams riders H Crits for each week. If everyone was falling off in week 3 except some exceptions then you have an advantage. But a 50 H Crit via transfusion vs a 50 via dope is level.
> 
> and before USPS/Disco/Radio Shack T Kom was the king of cheats.


We don't have Hct levels but we do have retro tests for EPO in 1999. In the last 2 weeks of the Tour almost all of the positive/questionable tests came from one team. USPS

I would not put Telekom as King. Their team program was too conservative. Even Riis did his own thing. He worked with Cicchini and took twice as much EPO and HGH as his teammates who were on the team program


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> We don't have Hct levels but we do have retro tests for EPO in 1999. In the last 2 weeks of the Tour almost all of the positive/questionable tests came from one team. USPS
> 
> I would not put Telekom as King. Their team program was too conservative. Even Riis did his own thing. He worked with Cicchini and took twice as much EPO and HGH as his teammates who were on the team program


Back to BAck TdF victories, along with Jans White Jersey. Zabel's run in green. They pretty much were at the top of the heap.

If we are talking 'advantage' we need to see the numbers. I'd wager USPS held higher H Crits. Don't most riders get tested to make sure they don't break 50? Those are the #s we need to see


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> in 1996 Riis was willing to take huge risks with his health. Much more then other riders. He took twice as much EPO and HGH as his teammates and had an Hct of 64%. No wonder he dropped to 7th as soon as the 50% rule was introduced.
> 
> No level playing field there. Many riders used EPO that year but few teams would allow riders to have such high Hct.


They still maintained solid results despite being behind the curve. I still don't know why we don't assume they're lying. Zabel only tried EPO a "few" times because he didn't like how it made him feel. We all know how that turned out. Shoot, Klöden desnies ever doping. I'm sure he's telling the truth.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Lots of guys were dirty back then.


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> Lots of guys were dirty back then.


Although he's been on a lot of teams that have doped there's never any evidence he has.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

atpjunkie said:


> Back to BAck TdF victories, along with Jans White Jersey. Zabel's run in green. They pretty much were at the top of the heap.
> 
> If we are talking 'advantage' we need to see the numbers. I'd wager USPS held higher H Crits. Don't most riders get tested to make sure they don't break 50? Those are the #s we need to see


For 1999, 2000, 2001 USPS certainly had higher crits. 

Riis was successful because he took extreme risks that his teammates, and other riders, refused to take. 64% Hct during the Tour is insane. 

As soon as the 50% limit was put in place the advantage shifted from riders who were willing to take huge risks to riders who had the best ratio of naturally low Hct/high Vo2. Jan and Lance both had this. 

Speaking of risks and extreme doping. There is a case for Tyler Hamilton being one of the more extreme dopers. He pushed the limits of his time and, on a level playing field, would have never come close to the front of the Tour


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> For 1999, 2000, 2001 USPS certainly had higher crits.


I'd like to see the numbers so we can get a bar of how much. If other teams were down 2-4% by week 3 it would be pretty significant


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

atpjunkie said:


> I'd like to see the numbers so we can get a bar of how much. If other teams were down 2-4% by week 3 it would be pretty significant


is your position that two riders with same H Crit value is on "a level playing field"?


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

den bakker said:


> is your position that two riders with same H Crit value is on "a level playing field"?


not entirely but a rider who has a diminishing H Crit over 3 weeks vs a riders who is stable is at a disadvantage

so if they both start @ 48 and @ week 3 one is @ 42 and the other is 47, the rider @ 47 would have an advantage

on another tangent. If Lance had succumbed to Cancer it is most likely Jan would have won a majority of the Tours in his absence. So we'd be either talkning about how Jan is one of the greats or the biggest cheat ever.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

atpjunkie said:


> on another tangent. If Lance had succumbed to Cancer it is most likely Jan would have won a majority of the Tours in his absence. So we'd be either talkning about how Jan is one of the greats or the biggest cheat ever.


LOL, true dat. If Jan didn't cheat, it would have been the next guy, or the next guy, or the next guy.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> For 1999, 2000, 2001 USPS certainly had higher crits.
> 
> Riis was successful because he took extreme risks that his teammates, and other riders, refused to take. 64% Hct during the Tour is insane.
> 
> ...


Tyler's black urine story was a little freaky. 

In theory, shouldn't guys with a naturally low H/H eventually start to lose the advantage if they continuously keep the numbers that high? During their down time, wouldn't they basically be slugs if they took a break from doping?


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

spade2you said:


> LOL, true dat. If Jan didn't cheat, it would have been the next guy, or the next guy, or the next guy.


Jan didn't return his medals. His reason 'everyone else was doing it"
""Almost everyone at the time was taking performance-enhancing substances. I didn’t take anything that was not taken by the others. It would only have been cheating for me if I had gotten an advantage which was not the case. I just wanted to ensure I had an equal opportunity." (interview with Sky Sports)
1 win and 4 2nds, a 4th and a 3rd. Bump all those 2nds to 1sts and he's a 5x winner.
Had he not been injured in 99 and Lance was dead, 6 wins.

35,000 euros a year on dope, or so they say


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

atpjunkie said:


> Jan didn't return his medals. His reason 'everyone else was doing it"
> ""Almost everyone at the time was taking performance-enhancing substances. I didn’t take anything that was not taken by the others. It would only have been cheating for me if I had gotten an advantage which was not the case. I just wanted to ensure I had an equal opportunity." (interview with Sky Sports)
> 1 win and 4 2nds, a 4th and a 3rd. Bump all those 2nds to 1sts and he's a 5x winner.
> Had he not been injured in 99 and Lance was dead, 6 wins.
> ...


No doubt. 

I think the outcome of '99 could have been a lot different, given that the 1998 podium was injured or suspended. Zulle and Eskartin were starting to be a little past their prime. Perhaps if Lance didn't get the ball rolling with the '99 win, maybe his career wouldn't have kept building. 

The funny/boring detail about Lance's streak was that almost all of his competition had crashed out at one time or another. Pure luck on his part. Even Merckx couldn't escape that. LeMond could have probably had another GT win or two without the hunting incident.


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

atpjunkie said:


> 35,000 euros a year on dope, or so they say


That's a steal compared to the $1M+ Lance paid Ferrari for "aero testing and bike fitting".


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

spade2you said:


> Tyler's black urine story was a little freaky.
> 
> In theory, shouldn't guys with a naturally low H/H eventually start to lose the advantage if they continuously keep the numbers that high? During their down time, wouldn't they basically be slugs if they took a break from doping?


Hmm, that's a good question. 

Some people's ability to produce Rbc's diminishes if they are constantly using EPO but I have not heard that a consistent over supply of Rbc lowers baseline Vo2. Would be an interesting thing to study


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

deviousalex said:


> That's a steal compared to the $1M+ Lance paid Ferrari for "aero testing and bike fitting".


Good point. So for $1,000,000 did Ferrari provide Armstrong "the most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program" or did he provided the same thing everyone else was doing? 

Either Lance was a sucker who was scammed out of $1,000,000 by Ferrari, or the folks who believe there was a level playing field are buying into a myth.


----------

