• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

"Armstrong to blame for his own cancer"

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Feb 21, 2010
1,007
0
0
Visit site
As for legal action from the Armstrong group, doubtful. What could he say? That his doping did NOT cause the cancer? He surely would not sue to prove he did NOT dope. If so, he coulda/shoulda sued Landis back when Landis was begging him to do so.

No legal action from the Armstrong people on this issue. Not a chance.
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,355
1
0
Visit site
andy1234 said:
This will be music to Armstrongs ears.
True or not, there will be nothing but support from the cancer community coming for Lance on this one.....

This will be a perfect opportunity to Lance to make a press conference or some sort of publicity stunt.
 
Nov 24, 2009
1,602
0
0
Visit site
Nick C. said:
You really think people will take seriously the medical theories of an MMA fighter? an MMA fighter??? where do they fit on the intellect food chain somewhere between dinosaurs and parameciums?

But he is almost certainly right....
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
Visit site
scribe said:
It's some kind of miracle everyone who does the dope doesn't have cancer then.

I believe in miracles:)

And this MMA guy did not come up with the story "Doping caused Lance's Cancer".

Not an original idea.

This story makes the round every couple years
 
top_tenz_finish said:
Python - I think there is a lot of research that also says the opposite as well (and probably a lot more on that side).

That EPO is an agent which can reduce cancer growths? I find that hard to believe but will sure read the papers if they are there.

EPO and other catalysts for RBC production are an integral part of dealing with cancer treatment, but I've never heard of them being a treatment in themselves.

I doubt that Lance's cancer was a direct result of drug abuse, he was diagnosed in 1996? Probably the maximum time he was using PEDs before that, 4 years? It could have "contributed to the severity" like any of our lifestyle decisions but as the primary cause? No.

The bigger question is why it wasn't detected earlier through drug tests.
 
Jul 3, 2010
115
0
0
Visit site
Seems to be pretty clear that Testosterone accelerates the spread of a number of cancers.... given the "don't use if you have cancer" warnings attached to Androgel

"Do not use AndroGel if you: have breast cancer; have or might have prostate cancer;"
 
Jul 6, 2009
795
0
0
Visit site
to assume or say armstrongs cancer was caused by doping is an ignorant thing to say. it is conjecture at best and nothing more. young healthy people can and do get sick and die from cancer look into it. its the same with fingon caner is number 2 killer of humans worldwide you dont need to take peds to get cancer at any age. we would have an epidemic of cancer cases across many sports if this were even remotely true troll thread.:mad:
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,355
1
0
Visit site
Roland Rat said:
Sticking testosterone patches to your 'nads could exacerbate or accelerate a predisposition though. Particularly if used during formative years.

A bit of sleeplessness probably exacerbates cancer too, but hardly causes it.
 
Jul 25, 2010
109
0
0
Visit site
Ferminal said:
That EPO is an agent which can reduce cancer growths? I find that hard to believe but will sure read the papers if they are there.

EPO and other catalysts for RBC production are an integral part of dealing with cancer treatment, but I've never heard of them being a treatment in themselves.

I doubt that Lance's cancer was a direct result of drug abuse, he was diagnosed in 1996? Probably the maximum time he was using PEDs before that, 4 years? It could have "contributed to the severity" like any of our lifestyle decisions but as the primary cause? No.

The bigger question is why it wasn't detected earlier through drug tests.

Or later when he was under so much suspicion from 99-05 and had everyone gunning to find something?
 
Jul 6, 2009
795
0
0
Visit site
well just lost more respect for mma retards some high school grad giving opinions on cancer causes thats cute. though he has no background in medicine of any kind clearly been kicked in the head too many times moron.
 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
Visit site
Roland Rat said:
Sticking testosterone patches to your 'nads could exacerbate or accelerate a predisposition though. Particularly if used during formative years.

I wanted to think that nad patches was a myth..What could happen???

""""Controversy

Some cyclists he had trained later sued USA Cycling (USAC) for doping them and named him and fellow coach Rene Wenzel in their allegations, Greg Strock in 2000, and Erich Kaiter in 2004. Both reportedly made out-of-court settlements with him but the case against the USAC continued as of April 2006"""

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Carmichael_%28cyclist%29
 
Jul 5, 2009
143
0
0
Visit site
Nick C. said:
You really think people will take seriously the medical theories of an MMA fighter? an MMA fighter??? where do they fit on the intellect food chain somewhere between dinosaurs and parameciums?

His qualifications don't come into play if the science (and risks) are clinically proven.

If it helps, pretend a magical unicorn made the statement. It won't matter because the science says it's possible.

You'd even believe Floyd Landis if he insisted 1 + 1 = 2. Well I hope you would, anyway.
 
Bailey said:
His qualifications don't come into play if the science (and risks) are clinically proven.

If it helps, pretend a magical unicorn made the statement. It won't matter because the science says it's possible.

You'd even believe Floyd Landis if he insisted 1 + 1 = 2. Well I hope you would, anyway.

Surely its irrelevant if its true or not?

Saying that someone is to blame for their cancer is going to go down like a lead balloon with the general public and experts alike.

A lot of people who would not have defended Armstrong, might do when they read this.
 
Jan 19, 2010
4
0
0
Visit site
redtreviso said:
Some cyclists he had trained later sued USA Cycling (USAC) for doping them and named him and fellow coach Rene Wenzel in their allegations, Greg Strock in 2000, and Erich Kaiter in 2004. Both reportedly made out-of-court settlements with him but the case against the USAC continued as of April 2006"""

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Carmichael_%28cyclist%29


This is the key here. It has nothing to do with EPO. EPO isn't the only drug out there. They were given "extracts of cortisone" which was probably just cortisone. What is cortisone... "GCs are part of the feedback mechanism in the immune system that turns immune activity (inflammation) down. " They are used so that you do not get the burning sensation during exercise because your immune system is turned off. What do people get millions/billions of times per day that their immune system destroys? Cancer! What happens if your immune system is turned down... well... you *may* get cancer (lets not forget that the testosterone patches may have exacerbated the situation). It is not surprising that one of the junior riders got crohn's disease, another the b19 virus, and lance got testicular cancer.

As far as why don't other riders get testicular cancer because they take EPO? Because it is not the EPO, it was cortisone. They don't take cortisone now because they will test positive for it. Lance tested positive for corticosteroids right? Much like after he tested positive for EPO he begin going to transfusions.

*This is all speculation
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
Visit site
Bailey said:
You'd even believe Floyd Landis if he insisted 1 + 1 = 2. Well I hope you would, anyway.

I might not not believe Floyd...

"Does 1+1=2? There can be arguments made in as many abstract idealism as we can humanly come up with. Can one absolutely determine that one plus one equals two? How would one explain to an uneducated tribesman from deep within the jungles of Peru that we are right in our determination? Is it even possible to be absolutely correct in mathematical theory?

Obviously the answer is no. Not only a little no, but a big resounding NO."

http://www.helium.com/items/444557-offering-proof-to-the-question-is-it-true-that-112
 
Apr 9, 2009
976
0
0
Visit site
scribe said:
A bit of sleeplessness probably exacerbates cancer too, but hardly causes it.

Bit of a difference between sleeplessness and dosing yourself with a hormone repeatedly. Any time you put additional hormones into your body artificially you're probably upping the risk of cancer, whether it causes the cells to mutate (doubtful) or accelerates the growth rate of abnormal cells (more likely).

That being said, why in the world is an MMA fighter casting stones about PEDs? I would think it's the most drug-ridden "sport" there is, excluding body building.
 
Jul 5, 2009
143
0
0
Visit site
andy1234 said:
Surely its irrelevant if its true or not?

Saying that someone is to blame for their cancer is going to go down like a lead balloon with the general public and experts alike.

A lot of people who would not have defended Armstrong, might do when they read this.

If I smoked heavily, I'd have no shock to learn that I had eventually given myself cancer of the lungs. Most heavy smokers are not shocked or surprised to learn as much of themselves.

I'd also consider myself the author of my own misfortune.

And I'd further assume you would be less-than-thrilled to finance my medical bills to treat my self-induced condition. I mean, I was the one pumping myself full of toxins; not you nor anyone else.

If Lance attached testosterone patches to his balls, it was he who was responsible for any consequences flowing therefrom. Positive (Tri and WC wins) or negative (cancer).
 
andy1234 said:
Surely its irrelevant if its true or not?

Saying that someone is to blame for their cancer is going to go down like a lead balloon with the general public and experts alike.

A lot of people who would not have defended Armstrong, might do when they read this.

I beg to differ. I would have thought many people would have little sympathy for someone who acquired cancer attempting to cheat at a sport, particularly compared to "normal" people.

Very crude analogy, but... If someone gets run over by a bus, I have sympathy. If someone gets run over by a bus by taking risks when running away from police having robbed someone, tough luck.
 
Jul 5, 2009
143
0
0
Visit site
Polish said:
I might not not believe Floyd...

"Does 1+1=2? There can be arguments made in as many abstract idealism as we can humanly come up with. Can one absolutely determine that one plus one equals two? How would one explain to an uneducated tribesman from deep within the jungles of Peru that we are right in our determination? Is it even possible to be absolutely correct in mathematical theory?

Obviously the answer is no. Not only a little no, but a big resounding NO."

http://www.helium.com/items/444557-offering-proof-to-the-question-is-it-true-that-112

I think you just came up with Lance's only possible legal defence argument. "Nothing is real and none of us may actually be sitting here." :)

In South Park they called it the "Chewbacca Defence", didn't they. ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense