Official lance armstrong thread, part 2 (from september 2012)

[mountaindew]

What we do know is that growth hormone will speed up cancer cell growth. This can not be argued.

 

[hrotha]

What we do know is that growth hormone will speed up cancer cell growth. This can not be argued.

Yep. When you think about it, cancer + HGH + late detection due to masking agents or whatever is a very dangerous cocktail. Armstrong was lucky.

 

[Cycle Chic]

Newser repeating the question and also the article...

Did Armstrong Drug Use Give Him Cancer?

Say it ain't so, Lance

By Neal Colgrass, Newser Staff


Posted Sep 3, 2012 3:48 PM CDT

http://www.newser.com/story/153352/did-armstrong-drug-use-give-him-cancer.html

 

[Flux Capacity]

There are some posts somewhere on this forum which mention that some of Armstrong's team-mates (in the US, when he was young) also got cancer, apparently (I think) from cortico'roids. I'm sure someone will mention it

 

[Stingray34]

There are some posts somewhere on this forum which mention that some of Armstrong's team-mates (in the US, when he was young) also got cancer, apparently (I think) from cortico'roids. I'm sure someone will mention it

Right you are - Greg Strock and others on US Olympic squad.

He settled out of court with Chris 'extract of cortisone' Carmichael.

Chris Comical - can't coach, can give you cancer

 

[FitSsikS]

Remember when Chael Sonnen said the unthinkable (live on a radio talk show)?:

“Lance Armstrong did a number of things, and he gave himself cancer. He cheated, he did drugs, and he gave himself cancer. Well, instead of saying ‘Hey listen, I cheated and gave myself cancer. Don’t be like me’ he actually made himself the victim and then went out and profited something like $15 million from this, ‘Hey, poor me, let’s find a cure for cancer’ campaign instead of just coming clean and saying, ‘Look, here’s what I did, I screwed myself up, and I hope people learn from my mistakes.”

Link

Discussed here in this thread: "Armstrong to blame for his own cancer"

Aside from his own PED use (btw now he has a TUE ) Chael is now my hero.

 

[Flux Capacity]

Ah yeah, Strock. Thanks, Stingray. Wasn't there another one or two?

 

[LauraLyn]

Finally this topic has been brought up in the media...havent seen it discussed anywhere on the forum yet so apologies if i have missed it. . . .

A good topic and good for a thread. I posted this about two hours earlier than you today on the Evidence thread. So I am glad to see it being further explored.

Sports Illustrated postulated that Lance Armstrong's cancer was "self-inflicted" (September 2006). It was widely discussed in the media. There had also been plenty of rumors in that direction prior to that.

If you look at Lance's testosterone levels in the few years prior to his cancer, you will see that they are abnormally high. Indeed, by today's WADA rules he would have been busted for doping.

Of course, you only need to think of where testosterone is manufactured in the male body (parts you and I know nothing about ) and . . . .

It needs to be said that steroid use has not been conclusively linked to cancer. There has been a good deal of published research on this in the past 10 years. Some links have been made to liver and kidney cancer, but none directly to (uh)cancer.

(EPO is a different medical story and perhaps not directly relevant to the discussion here.)

 

[Stingray34]

Ah yeah, Strock. Thanks, Stingray. Wasn't there another one or two?

There were two others, I think. Names escape me. Hog, RR, Moose etc would know.

 

[MarkvW]

This has all already been done, redone, and overdone in an earlier thread in case anybody wants to look.

 

[FitSsikS]

And then tried to deny he said it.

One of the funniest things I ever read too. To paraphrase Chael (after listening to a recording of the aforementioned statement):

"That doesn't even sound like me. That guy has a completely different accent. Although he does sound extremely intelligent."

LOL.

 

[Bosco10]

It is in his sworn submission to the Federal court in Austin, Armstrong vs. USADA.

But you are right. Mostly he has been very careful to avoid saying "I never doped". Usually he just said "I passed all the tests." (The number varies depending on when he is saying it and how many he believes he can get away with claiming. The largest claim, I believe, (again in the Fed case) is "500-600."

A real possible number is probably somewhere around 230.

Travis Tygart & the USADA requested Lance to send him a list of the tests he claimed to have had, but he did not respond.

There is a lot more information in earlier postings here.

I've found a video of Lance saying "I have never doped." It's on the Liespotting website..lol:

http://liespotting.com/2011/06/liespotting-lance-armstrong-part-2-expert-analysis/

 

[DirtyWorks]

This has all already been done, redone, and overdone in an earlier thread in case anybody wants to look.

While I agree with your sentiment, people still do not want to put one and one together and make two. In this case, Armstrong's time in a national development program was doped thus making every accomplishment in his cycling career null and void.

In fact, John Wilcockson is STILL retelling the myth as if Armstrong was not in a doping program since day one. In 2012 he's got a home retelling the hagiography over at "peloton magazine."

 

[wirral]

There's no mention of this in It's not about the Bike.

 

[LauraLyn]

There's no mention of this in It's not about the Bike.

Publishers' page limitations. They always get in the way of telling the whole story.

 

[Cycle Chic]

This has all already been done, redone, and overdone in an earlier thread in case anybody wants to look.

I did search the forum to post the topic but couldnt find it. Thats the problem with the forum threads - it takes forever to find the relevant thread. If you can tell me of a quick way go ahead....you try searching 'lance and cancer' in the clinic...hundreds come up.

 

[dolophonic]

Yes this has been discussed many times.. widely seen as very possible..

 

[cyclingnutz]

Ernie Lechuga’s comeback continues

By VeloNews.com Published Jun. 27, 2001

http://velonews.competitor.com/2001/06/news/road/ernie-lechugas-comeback-continues_956

 

[KayLow]

There is no easy way to know for us to know what, if any, effect doping had on Lance's cancer. Cancer is a disease caused by the uncontrolled growth of a single cell. This growth is unleashed by mutations, i.e. changes in cell DNA, that affect genes controlling cell hyperplasia. Once this cycle gets going, cancer cells grow and mutate without any of the built-in limitations that normally affect cell growth. Chemicals, including hormones, can play one of two possible roles. First, they can act as mutagens, which alter cell DNA thereby leading to changes that produce the cancerous hyperplasia. Generally, these mutations occur in people already susceptible to the particular mutation that develops. Cancer is essentially lying in wait in our DNA.

Second, chemicals, including hormones, can increase cancer cell hyperplasia. Some cancer cells are sensitive to various hormones. In the presence of these hormones, the cancer cells divide and mutate rapidly. The best example of this are certain types of estrogen-senstive breast cancers. For these cancers, anti-estrogen drugs such as Tomaxifen, which block estrogen receptors on cells, are highly effective treatments.

The problem with attributing Lance's cancer to doping is that, in the first instance, no one can know what specifically caused the initial mutation that led to Lance's cancer. Secondly, unless we know whether Lance had cancer cells that were sensitive to the doping agents he had in his body, we will never know that his doping had an effect on his cancer. Cancer cells are all quite different, and, without testing them for hormone sensitivity, one is simply left to speculate. At the time of Lance's cancer, there was no HGH antagonist with which to treat HGH-sensitive cancers, so it seems unlikely that any testing towards this end was ever done.

 

[Kennf1]

Ah yeah, Strock. Thanks, Stingray. Wasn't there another one or two?

Strock and Caiter. It wasn't cancer. I believe it was various immune system disorders. They sued Rene Wenzell, Chris Carmichael, and USCF.

 

[LauraLyn]

There is no easy way to know for us to know what, if any, effect doping had on Lance's cancer. Cancer is a disease caused by the uncontrolled growth of a single cell. This growth is unleashed by mutations, i.e. changes in cell DNA, that affect genes controlling cell hyperplasia. Once this cycle gets going, cancer cells grow and mutate without any of the built-in limitations that normally affect cell growth. Chemicals, including hormones, can play one of two possible roles. First, they can act as mutagens, which alter cell DNA thereby leading to changes that produce the cancerous hyperplasia. Generally, these mutations occur in people already susceptible to the particular mutation that develops. Cancer is essentially lying in wait in our DNA.

Second, chemicals, including hormones, can increase cancer cell hyperplasia. Some cancer cells are sensitive to various hormones. In the presence of these hormones, the cancer cells divide and mutate rapidly. The best example of this are certain types of estrogen-senstive breast cancers. For these cancers, anti-estrogen drugs such as Tomaxifen, which block estrogen receptors on cells, are highly effective treatments.

The problem with attributing Lance's cancer to doping is that, in the first instance, no one can know what specifically caused the initial mutation that led to Lance's cancer. Secondly, unless we know whether Lance had cancer cells that were sensitive to the doping agents he had in his body, we will never know that his doping had an effect on his cancer. Cancer cells are all quite different, and, without testing them for hormone sensitivity, one is simply left to speculate. At the time of Lance's cancer, there was no HGH antagonist with which to treat HGH-sensitive cancers, so it seems unlikely that any testing towards this end was ever done.

Agree. What you say is entirely correct.

But I think the question is whether there can be a correlation between doping (e.g., steroids) and cancer. For no single episode of cancer is it ever possible to say "this or that" is definitively the cause. But we can have higher or lower rates of correlations linking behaviors, exposures, etc. to morbidity (or simply one cell basically going crazy).

 

[Fatclimber]

I've heard it alluded to that the UCI, along with ignoring indicators that he was doping also ignored indicators that he had cancer. So what exactly would the tests have picked up that would indicate that an athlete had cancer? Thanks.

 

[Markyboyzx6r]

There is no easy way to know for us to know what, if any, effect doping had on Lance's cancer. Cancer is a disease caused by the uncontrolled growth of a single cell. This growth is unleashed by mutations, i.e. changes in cell DNA, that affect genes controlling cell hyperplasia. Once this cycle gets going, cancer cells grow and mutate without any of the built-in limitations that normally affect cell growth. Chemicals, including hormones, can play one of two possible roles. First, they can act as mutagens, which alter cell DNA thereby leading to changes that produce the cancerous hyperplasia. Generally, these mutations occur in people already susceptible to the particular mutation that develops. Cancer is essentially lying in wait in our DNA.

Second, chemicals, including hormones, can increase cancer cell hyperplasia. Some cancer cells are sensitive to various hormones. In the presence of these hormones, the cancer cells divide and mutate rapidly. The best example of this are certain types of estrogen-senstive breast cancers. For these cancers, anti-estrogen drugs such as Tomaxifen, which block estrogen receptors on cells, are highly effective treatments.

The problem with attributing Lance's cancer to doping is that, in the first instance, no one can know what specifically caused the initial mutation that led to Lance's cancer. Secondly, unless we know whether Lance had cancer cells that were sensitive to the doping agents he had in his body, we will never know that his doping had an effect on his cancer. Cancer cells are all quite different, and, without testing them for hormone sensitivity, one is simply left to speculate. At the time of Lance's cancer, there was no HGH antagonist with which to treat HGH-sensitive cancers, so it seems unlikely that any testing towards this end was ever done.

Thanks Dr KayLow. Keep living strong.

 

[MacRoadie]

What advantage would the PED's that Lance supposedly used actually of given him?

I've read maybe 5 percent. Did Lance really need a 5 percent advantage over his competitors to win?

The dedication Lance had to cycling and his training program I find it hard to believe he would have even bothered with drugs.

My feelings are he would have just said I don't need that stuff to beat the competition.

Ed

 

[LauraLyn]

I've heard it alluded to that the UCI, along with ignoring indicators that he was doping also ignored indicators that he had cancer. So what exactly would the tests have picked up that would indicate that an athlete had cancer? Thanks.

It is part of the allegations against UCI. If Lance had been tested properly his cancer would have been found sooner and at an earlier stage.

Another cyclist's cancer was caught by the same tests round about that time.

Apologies. I don't have the references handy.