• 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. Thanks!

"Armstrong to blame for his own cancer"

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

buckwheat

BANNED
Sep 24, 2009
1,852
0
0
Visit site
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).

Please find a study where the subject is taking, corticoids, steroids, amphetamines, caffeine, Hgh, EPO, and training hard for more than 30 hours a week.
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,355
1
0
Visit site
Kennf1 said:
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.

Yes and no. Cycling is probably a few notches behind uncontrolled body building. There might be some doping at the top of MMA, but there really isn't the money for it in the development levels of MMA. I find the weight cutting (water weight before weigh-ins) in boxing, MMA, amatuer wrestling, etc; to make it particularly difficult for certain kinds of doping. Would you risk hemocrit-raising doping when you are basically going into your match dehydrated?
 
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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:principia_Mathematica_theorem_54-43.png

Give this a try ;)
 

buckwheat

BANNED
Sep 24, 2009
1,852
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.

Who gives a $hit what "a lot" of people might do?

Sonnen is entirely right. Pharmstrong will not sue him.

The last lead balloon prediction by no less an authority than Keith Moon, went over pretty big as far as I can recall.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65Ebs8K9TjI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rb6pJlrS9DA
 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
Visit site
No one should suggest that is was EPO that caused Lance's cancer or anyone else...

but...I bet Amgen is happy that cyclists that have used EPO for years aren't coming down with some sort of leukemia. Introducing that outside stimuli for red cell production could turn off the natural mechanisms.. Lets see how Lance's generation does at age 50.
 
redtreviso said:
No one should suggest that is was EPO that caused Lance's cancer or anyone else...

but...I bet Amgen is happy that cyclists that have used EPO for years aren't coming down with some sort of leukemia. Introducing that outside stimuli for red cell production could turn off the natural mechanisms.. Lets see how Lance's generation does at age 50.

There's a morbid thought. 90's results being re-written based on who drops dead in their early 50's of certain illnesses.
 
Jul 5, 2009
143
0
0
Visit site
redtreviso said:
Lets see how Lance's generation does at age 50.

Likely as well as all the pro wrestlers who used steroids and growth hormones! Many don't reach middle age before the heart attack strikes.

Mess with your biology at your peril.
 
Bailey said:
Likely as well as all the pro wrestlers who used steroids and growth hormones! Many don't reach middle age before the heart attack strikes.

Mess with your biology at your peril.

On this subject, I must recommend the movie "The Wrestler" to all:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_wrestler/

One of the themes it deals with is PED abuse and how pro athletes are required to abuse their bodies in general. While it is about pro wrestling (and is fiction) it sadly has direct parallels to the current state of pro cycling.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
As much as I dislike Strongarm...I don't think this one is going to get very far...probably about as far as stating he got his ped's from space aliens...call me a crackpot but I will give him the benefit of the doubt as to to the origin of his cancer....
 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
Visit site
Bailey said:
Likely as well as all the pro wrestlers who used steroids and growth hormones! Many don't reach middle age before the heart attack strikes.

Mess with your biology at your peril.

When Lance was 19 he looked more like a pro wrestler or Jason Giambi than a bike racer.. just saying
 
Jul 5, 2009
143
0
0
Visit site
Polish said:
Ok, so we ask Floyd to ADD the following:

The Loneliest NUMBER that you'll ever do

plus

The NUMBER of times he won the TdF


Floyd answers 'Two"

Do YOU believe him??

No, because he was scientifically proven as a cheat and therefore did not win a TdF.

So Floyd is therefore saying 1 + 0 = 2, which is obviously wrong, and so I don't believe him. :)
 
Jul 5, 2009
143
0
0
Visit site
Cash05458 said:
As much as I dislike Strongarm...I don't think this one is going to get very far...probably about as far as stating he got his ped's from space aliens...call me a crackpot but I will give him the benefit of the doubt as to to the origin of his cancer....



Prima facie, I would have to agree.

It is all conjecture and not relevant to his court case about whether or not he cheated - unless it genuinely helps establish that fact.

(If a victim has a bullet in him and I'm nearby holding a gun without any bullets inside it, certain aspects of that fact could help link me to the crime.)

But yeah...if i were prosecuting him, I'd definitely hold it as a possible extra line of inquiry and introduce it only if the rest of my lines of evidence (credible/direct witness testimony) get shat on - or don't have enough weight to displace the burden of proof.

Maybe I'd seek out some specialist medical experts who have studied this type of thing intensely and then introduce them as weight-adding 'circumstantial evidence'.
 
Aug 10, 2009
26
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


Ernie Lechuga was also was also a member of the same U23 team. He was diagnosed with testicular cancer in 1998.
 
Jul 5, 2009
143
0
0
Visit site
Muzzin said:
Ernie Lechuga was also was also a member of the same U23 team. He was diagnosed with testicular cancer in 1998.

Wow. That's a high strike-rate for cancer in the same small group of people. Seems too unusual to be mere coincidence.

On second thought, I'd definitely get some of these people into the witness box. They might feel bummed that they got cancer but didn't get to win loads of TdFs...
 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
Visit site
Bailey said:
Wow. That's a high strike-rate for cancer in the same small group of people. Seems too unusual to be mere coincidence.

On second thought, I'd definitely get some of these people into the witness box. They might feel bummed that they got cancer but didn't get to win loads of TdFs...

They also might be bummed that their employer 2 jobs ago didn't retroactively reach out and give them medical insurance.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Bailey said:
Prima facie, I would have to agree.

It is all conjecture and not relevant to his court case about whether or not he cheated - unless it genuinely helps establish that fact.

(If a victim has a bullet in him and I'm nearby holding a gun without any bullets inside it, certain aspects of that fact could help link me to the crime.)

But yeah...if i were prosecuting him, I'd definitely hold it as a possible extra line of inquiry and introduce it only if the rest of my lines of evidence (credible/direct witness testimony) get shat on - or don't have enough weight to displace the burden of proof.

Maybe I'd seek out some specialist medical experts who have studied this type of thing intensely and then introduce them as weight-adding 'circumstantial evidence'.

sounds like a real 4th and 99 play...
 
buckwheat said:
Who gives a $hit what "a lot" of people might do?

Sonnen is entirely right. Pharmstrong will not sue him.

The last lead balloon prediction by no less an authority than Keith Moon, went over pretty big as far as I can recall.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65Ebs8K9TjI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rb6pJlrS9DA

Im not talking about who will sue who.

Im just stating that If this goes any further, regardless of whether you "give a $hit", Armstrong will receive some unexpected goodwill.
Nothing more, nothing less.
 
Medical Misinformation

Common on people. Bash Armstrong all you want. Blame him for every horrible thing in cycling or the world if that makes you feel better. But please, don't do so at the expense of spreading misinformation about cancer in general and testicular cancer specifically. If you review all the credible cancer experts you will see they all say the same thing - there is no medical evidence supporting the theory that testosterone or EPO or any other drug causes testicular cancer.

Testicular cancer is the #1 cause of cancer in men between the ages of approximately 15 to 40. The #1 cause! Almost 8,000 cases a year are diagnosed in the US; about 1 in every 250 men will be diagnosed with the disease at some time in their life and about 95% of them will be Caucasian. There's an excellent chance that it will hit some of you! (how many professional cyclists are there? Apply that worldwide and just by the law of averages you're going to get multiple pro-cyclists being afflicted with testicular cancer). Although medical experts don't know exactly what causes testicular cancer, any more than they know why people (mostly women) who have never smoked get lung cancer, they do know what increases the risk for testicular cancer. Drug use of any kind isn't one of those risks.

As mentioned in some of the links below (yes, real medical information - directly from or based on medical experts and not some blow hard from MMA) what long term steroid use does do to the testicles is atrophy them and even that reverses when steroid use stops. There have been studies on steroid usage for over 3 decades at this point and if there was any link between them and testicular cancer it would be well know by now.

For those of you supporting the idea that bringing these allegations into the courtroom might make Armstrong look bad; it wouldn't happened. All the expert testimony goes in the other direction. Sure, you might be able to pay big money to some shyster doctor who will testify to whatever you pay them for but the real medical experts with the proven credentials would win out.

Insinuating, or worse, stating out right, that testicular cancer is caused by drug use is doing a huge injustice to men and teenage boys everywhere who are diagnosed each year. There are any number of other things that can be used against Armstrong, even possible drug use. There's no reason to use medically inaccurate information. If you think there's no harm in doing so you are wrong! The belief that childhood vaccinations cause autism also started with a few angry people making wild accusations. The idea spread slowly until the internet get gave these misguided disillusionalists an open forum. The end result? Countless proven medical studies, from all over the world, have been completely ignored. Thousands of children are not being vaccinated which has lead to widespread increases of childhood diseases which were all but eradicated in the US. Words have consequences and often those consequences are severe.

http://www.nida.nih.gov/researchreports/steroids/anabolicsteroids4.html

http://tcrc.acor.org/tcprimer.html

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

http://rx.magazine.tripod.com/mh_20001002.htm

and one from a different perspective -

http://cei.org/op-eds-and-articles/lance-armstrongs-self-inflicted-cancer
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,225
1
0
Visit site
andy1234 said:
Im just stating that If this goes any further, regardless of whether you "give a $hit", Armstrong will receive some unexpected goodwill.
Nothing more, nothing less.

Maybe, but maybe not.

Using cancer as your magic shield is a little less effective when the seed of doubt is planted as to the cancer's origins.

And the fact is, if Armstrong was actively using various performance-enhancing drugs prior to getting cancer, and this becomes popular knowledge or belief, some people will wonder if this played a role in his cancer.

As far as whether it did or didn't, it's important to remember that someone can smoke 12 packs of cigarettes a day for 30 years and get lung cancer, and there will still not be a direct link to that individual's cancer and smoking. That's not how things work.

That said, I've read volumes of research on EPO and tumor growth. While it's definitely equivocal, the pendulum seems to be swinging towards "yes, it can cause tumor growth". There now is a box warning on it, by the way.

The bottom line is that it is, in fact, more dangerous than orange juice...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Because he is a public figure,Lance would be stupid to sue because he would have to prove that the MMA guy knew he was making a false statement when he made it. It is an almost impossible burden of proof.
 

TRENDING THREADS