• 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 + UCI + Cancer

Jun 16, 2009
647
0
0
Visit site
One of the more interesting parts of "From lance to Landis" (for me) was the fact that Armstrong's testicular cancer should have shown up as a positive control for testosterone over the many months where the disease was developing.

This has happened many times in other sports - footballer Alan Stubbs was told after a control something along the lines of "we have bad news or worse news: either you have used testosterone, or you have testicular cancer".

This early diagnosis meant he was treated immediately before the disease spread and was playing again after a few months.

Lance would have been tested repeatedly the year he suffered cancer (he was trained by Ferrari and was therefore getting good results) but no alarm was raised.

Possible implications of this are:

1 The UCI did not act upon the information resulting from the tests
2 Testosterone use was so widespread that the UCI was not following up on suspicious test results
3 Some kind of masking agent / urine substitution method was being used
4 Someone in the labs / UCI was being paid off.

Following on from this - It seems feasible to imagine that with the trend set by other sports, the UCI might be considered liable for not spotting LA's cancer via the abnormal testosterone results. I would imagine that he would have a right to be angry with them, and certainly consider legal action. This possibility must have crossed the minds of the UCI elite.

However, LA was remarkably relaxed about the UCI's possible negligence, which seems strange considering what an angry and resentful person he appears to be and how much venom he spat at Cofidis and any team that wouldn't sign him during his convalescence. Why? Was this a sign of own responsibility?

- Did the doctors tell him that his cancer had been caused / aggravated by steroid use?
- Were his samples being manipulated? Masking agent? Someone elses urine? (USPS did this in 2000 with the notorious clear samples after a 6hr mountain stage in hot weather)
- was there some sort of corruption?

Another strange (and massively speculative) theory of mine is that there might have been some sort of deal struck along the lines of "I won't sue you if you ......... in the future when I return"......

This is a crazy theory but would'n't seem out of place seeing the leniency of the UCI after the obvious backdated TUE in 99.
 
Jul 13, 2009
425
0
0
Visit site
Could there be more explanations? Is it possible that testosterone was not tested for?

Also, is it likely that Armstrong never fully realized his elevated levels should have shown up as a positive test and that the UCI or the lab would be responsible for some kind of negligence? I agree that Armstrong has a vindictive personality, but it doesn't automatically follow that any time he doesn't sue, this demands an explanation.

Generally, I believe your option (2) is the most likely, but that's just my guess.
 
Jun 16, 2009
647
0
0
Visit site
yep. BCG - that's the one.

Science isn't my strongpoint.

Either way - if they weren't being misled and were doing their job properly they should have noticed.

It either reeks of dishonesty on the part of Armstrong/Ferrari, or some sort of cover up by the UCI.

Neither of which are remotely surprising. We know that both testosterone use and packing someone elses urine in a condom up the ar*e were reasonably widespread at that time. USPS and their entourage have "form" for both.

It just makes no sense to me why LA wouldn't sue the relevant authority for failing to spot his irregularities.

At that stage he surely must have been aware that he might not have a career as an athlete any longer, and the settlement (most likely out of court) would have maybe set him up for the rest of his life, and covered medical bills.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,442
0
0
Visit site
It was HCG. Normal values are < 0.5 and at the time of his diagnosis Armstrong reported his HCG levels were 109,000.

Your summary is correct: UCI ignored the results (and there is no possibility of a false positive with results like this) or a masking agent was used.

Regardless, it makes a mockery of the "I've never tested positive" argument.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
1
0
Visit site
Mongol_Waaijer said:
yep. BCG - that's the one.

Science isn't my strongpoint.

Either way - if they weren't being misled and were doing their job properly they should have noticed.

It either reeks of dishonesty on the part of Armstrong/Ferrari, or some sort of cover up by the UCI.

Neither of which are remotely surprising. We know that both testosterone use and packing someone elses urine in a condom up the ar*e were reasonably widespread at that time. USPS and their entourage have "form" for both.

It just makes no sense to me why LA wouldn't sue the relevant authority for failing to spot his irregularities.

At that stage he surely must have been aware that he might not have a career as an athlete any longer, and the settlement (most likely out of court) would have maybe set him up for the rest of his life, and covered medical bills.
that is the wrong subtance in the condom up the ar$e. Sample donations were sought thus: "chamois sniffers of the world unite, spread your seed to Livestrong!"
 
Alan Stubbs played with Celtic in Scotland as a professional soccer player. His testicular cancer was caught through a routine doping test as his urine showed him positive for beta-hCG. This was either doping or testicular cancer. It ws shown to be the latter. If Lance had not used a masking agent or the UCI didn't turn a blind eye, his hCG should also have shown up as it was shown to be 109,000 ng/ml. It should've been under five.
 
Jun 15, 2009
52
0
0
Visit site
Alpe d'Huez said:
Interesting discussion. I do remember reading this in L2L, but wondered why it hasn't gotten more traction in forums, and various sites/articles.

Because the only people who give any credence to L2L and the rest of the libellous venom spewed out by Walsh, Ballester, Kimmage and the like are the sordid conspiracy theorists and LA haters who make up this forum. Get a life!!
 

Eva Maria

BANNED
May 24, 2009
387
0
0
Visit site
Oldnell said:
Because the only people who give any credence to L2L and the rest of the libellous venom spewed out by Walsh, Ballester, Kimmage and the like are the sordid conspiracy theorists and LA haters who make up this forum. Get a life!!

looks like BanProCyling/Arbiter has a new username
 

Eva Maria

BANNED
May 24, 2009
387
0
0
Visit site
BanProCycling said:
You are the only person here that I know for a fact has more than one account. Not me.

One minute you guys say the reason you are so spiteful about Armstrong is because of the overwhelming amount of Armstrong groupies. The next minute you try to pretend they're all one person. Dear oh dear.

Never said they are all the same person....but some of the more genius ones bare a striking resemblance
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,442
0
0
Visit site
Oldnell said:
Because the only people who give any credence to L2L and the rest of the libellous venom spewed out by Walsh, Ballester, Kimmage and the like are the sordid conspiracy theorists and LA haters who make up this forum. Get a life!!

I doubt that you or BPC will ever directly answer this question because this is your MO, but please explain to us conspiracy theorists how Lance's HCG measured as high as 109,000 ng/ml (as reported by Lance in It's Not About The Bike) and the upper limit of normal is 0.5 ng/ml but Lance does not test positive to HCG?
 
Jun 19, 2009
36
0
0
Visit site
Oldnell said:
Because the only people who give any credence to L2L and the rest of the libellous venom spewed out by Walsh, Ballester, Kimmage and the like are the sordid conspiracy theorists and LA haters who make up this forum. Get a life!!

Well said, Oldnell!
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,442
0
0
Visit site
sgreene said:
Well said, Oldnell!

So I will direct this question to you too sgreene:

elapid said:
I doubt that you or BPC will ever directly answer this question because this is your MO, but please explain to us conspiracy theorists how Lance's HCG measured as high as 109,000 ng/ml (as reported by Lance in It's Not About The Bike) and the upper limit of normal is 0.5 ng/ml but Lance does not test positive to HCG?
 
Oldnell said:
Because the only people who give any credence to L2L and the rest of the libellous venom spewed out by Walsh, Ballester, Kimmage and the like are the sordid conspiracy theorists and LA haters who make up this forum. Get a life!!

Libellous venom? Lance hasn't had much success in showing it to be libellous, and he certainly has tried in courts of law, so that's a fair statetment by you.

Show me even one example from their writings which shows them to be libel, or indeed one point you feel is downright lies.
 
Jul 6, 2009
97
0
0
Visit site
elapid said:
I doubt that you or BPC will ever directly answer this question because this is your MO, but please explain to us conspiracy theorists how Lance's HCG measured as high as 109,000 ng/ml (as reported by Lance in It's Not About The Bike) and the upper limit of normal is 0.5 ng/ml but Lance does not test positive to HCG?

How much testing did they do in 1996? Is it possible that he wasn't tested for testosterone? This was still pre-Festina.
 
Apr 17, 2009
308
0
0
Visit site
Unlikely they wouldn't have tested for test'. Roids were generally what people got popped for in the good old days if my memory serves me. Millar and Theunisse, for instance, received the summary slap on the wrist and stern telling off for steroid positives.
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,355
1
0
Visit site
badboygolf16v said:
Unlikely they wouldn't have tested for test'. Roids were generally what people got popped for in the good old days if my memory serves me. Millar and Theunisse, for instance, received the summary slap on the wrist and stern telling off for steroid positives.
My memory serves me too. Those suckers are very painful.
 
Jayarbie said:
How much testing did they do in 1996? Is it possible that he wasn't tested for testosterone? This was still pre-Festina.

Jacques de Caeaurriz, director of the French lab at Chatenay-Malabry:
"What I do know is that at this time (1996), testing for beta-hCG was operational and systematic."
The medical commission of the UCI were worried at the time for fear Lance would sue. I wonder why he didn't, considering how litigious he is.:rolleyes:
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,442
0
0
Visit site
Jayarbie said:
How much testing did they do in 1996? Is it possible that he wasn't tested for testosterone? This was still pre-Festina.

He was tested for HCG. I don't know how many times he was tested in 1996, but as the most tested athlete on earth :)rolleyes:) I would imagine at least 5 times. He did win the La Fleche Wallonne in 1996 so at least once if not more.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,442
0
0
Visit site
BPC is active on the forum at this time, so I'll post this again to see if BPC can answer this direct question:

elapid said:
I doubt that you or BPC will ever directly answer this question because this is your MO, but please explain to us conspiracy theorists how Lance's HCG measured as high as 109,000 ng/ml (as reported by Lance in It's Not About The Bike) and the upper limit of normal is 0.5 ng/ml but Lance does not test positive to HCG?
 
Jul 27, 2009
93
0
0
Visit site
What I think most people are forgetting, is that this all happened back when drugs weren't such a big thing in cycling. LA was not nearly as famous as he is now, so it is highly likely he only got tested a few times, and out of those few times, really, what is the likelihood that they tested all of them for HCG?

Or maybe they did know that his values were sky high, but it came out that Lance had cancer, so they didn't worry about it anymore? And why would he sue them anyway? The UCI are there to do drug tests, not cancer tests so it's not their resposibility to let him know really.
 

TRENDING THREADS