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

[the big ring]

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

Is that you, Mr Coyle?

 

[Turner29]

Given testicular cancer is the most common cancer seen in young men, it is obviously possible that Lance Armstrong's testicular cancer was not caused by steroid or HGH. However, rapid metastasis of testicular cancer is very rare and in Armstrong's case, might be indicative of such use.

In addition, EPO has been linked to rapid metastasis of certain cancers, including brain tumors. I have a paper on this subject that I need to dig up, as the paper essentially describes Armstrong's case and after reading it, even the most virulent fanboy would see the connection.

 

[pedaling squares]

Well, considering this gem from last year is his only other posting, I'd say he is either trolling or blissfully ignorant, or both.
Or Lance's mom.

Oh sweet Jesus. I thought that was you messing around with his thread-opening post. He wrote that himself, eh? Wow, that's a lot of love and a lot of crazy wrapped into one post. If the spelling and sentence structure were a little worse I would have thought it was Armstrong himself.

 

[Turner29]

I would love to know the results of this test, which must have been performed on Armstrong:

http://www.mayomedicallaboratories.com/test-catalog/Clinical+and+Interpretive/89713

It would not be cause and effect proof, but certainly would add to the evidence...

 

[mewmewmew13]

In before close

 

[Dead Star]

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

 

[zigmeister]

Interesting bit in the comments section below the article..

waikonini11 hours ago

Go do a google about the suppression of immunity related to abuse of corticosteroids and the link to human papillomavirus as a precursor to specifically testicular cancer.
Reply
1 reply

Don't quote some online comment, give me a real study off pubmed or something to go on.

 

[zigmeister]

But, Pharmstrong needed them drugs to win...

It is common knowledge human growth hormones, it is even in the name, can aggrevate cancer. It is knowledge EPO can cause cancer. So, to use both is gambling with your life.

I wouldn't go as far Pharmstrong did it to himself but he certainly didn't live like one trying to avoid getting cancer.

Source please. Pubmed etc...

 

[zigmeister]

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.

Finally, someone else with some facts and knows what they are talking about related to hormones and certain drugs in the "market place".

 

[zigmeister]

This paragraph alone makes this article completely ridiculous:

"Armstrong had testicular cancer, not as rare as Giambi’s pituitary tumor, and there is no vast scientific literature examining links between testicular cancer and steroid abuse (though a witness to an early hospital-bed conversation between Armstrong and his cancer doctors testified that he admitted using human growth hormone prior to his illness, which is well-linked to a great variety of cancers). But it raises what I think is really the most important question in Armstrong’s case: did abuse of the steroid drugs whose use was rampant in cycling in the 1980s and early 1990s cause the cancer that ultimately made Armstrong into a global celebrity, and into an heroic figure in the eyes of the global cancer community?"


There is no VAT scientific studies to show a link of steroids to cancer? You mean, none right?!?! Yet let's speculate and write an article and get paid because it is a hot topic and I can pay my rent this month.

And...the hearsay HGH Betsy/Frankie reference, lovely.

 

[Briant_Gumble]

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.

According to my understanding not every mutation becomes cancerous as some are purged by cytotoxic T lymphocytes and Natural killer kills before the cancer grows.

Using Corticosteroids inhibits T lymphocytes and NK cells, so I think that Corticosteroids were the most dangerous substance he was using with respect to cancer.

If he did use small doses of AAS, they would seem the least likely to affect his cancer.

 

[slcbiker]

Thanks KayLow for some rational comments in a forum too often filled with irrationality.
The title of this thread is pretty bad. Though there are certain cancers that are well-linked to external factors(i.e. lung cancer and smoking), testicular cancer is not one of them. Even if there was evidence of correlation between testicular cancer and steroids, correlation is not equal to causation, particularly when talking about a specific individual, as opposed to averages within a population.

Fair game to criticize Armstrong for drug use, but there is enough disbelief in science and bad science out there without throwing around stuff like this headline.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Source please. Pubmed etc...

Tomorrow, I am not on my own PC, no bookmarks here. Enough sources on EPO, dyalisis and cancer.

And, don't get me wrong, I am not f@cking around here, I was really disgusted when I read those articles, has nothing to do with Armstrong, he may even simply had bad luck with his doping. That's how cancer works. The spread and the speed of his cancer was abnormal, you gotta agree with that.

 

[MacRoadie]

And...the hearsay HGH Betsy/Frankie reference, lovely.

And...the tried and true "hearsay" reference once again, lovely.

For about the 5,00th time, the Andreus testified to what they PERSONALLY HEARD. That's not hearsay.

 

[the big ring]

And...the tried and true "hearsay" reference once again. Lovely.

For about the 5,00th time, The Andreus testified to what they PERSONALLY HEARD. That's not hearsay.

Ooh ooh!! LA PR bingo word. Thanks for the heads up!!

 

[KayLow]

And...the tried and true "hearsay" reference once again, lovely.

For about the 5,00th time, the Andreus testified to what they PERSONALLY HEARD. That's not hearsay.

It could be hearsay. Betsey did not witness Lance doping, but rather she witnessed Lance telling his doctors that he doped. If the statement is offered to prove that Lance did, in fact, dope, it would be hearsay unless one of the exceptions to hearsay applied. Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, a statement by a party is an exception to the hearsay rule. Thus, as long as Lance is a party in the case, Betsey's testimony that she heard Lance tell his doctors that he doped would not be inadmissible hearsay evidence.

 

[86TDFWinner]

Pharmstrongs Titles? Whole Era Worthless

Excellent article, and I agree.


http://sports.yahoo.com/news/column-...0301--spt.html

 

[Kender]

Excellent article, and I agree.


http://sports.yahoo.com/news/column-...0301--spt.html

link failed...

and really? another LA thread? surely this could be put into one of thousand other threads

 

[Maxiton]

this must be the article

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap...mRw_eg?docId=71bc70b8f645487684d7445bc33a4ddc

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Very well written. Right on the money. Another reason why the UCI needs a total flush.

 

[reginagold]

Now suppose though, there was a Dr. who transfused blood into some of the 1984 US Olympic Cycling Team members. Suppose that Dr. later sold training programs to elite triathletes. Suppose that Dr. had pictures of clients, including LA on his office walls.

Is that hearsay? Does it have any relevance to the veracity of the Andreu's testimony? Or is it just smoke near a fire? Is it more smoke that Chris Carmichael was on the 1984 US Olympic Cycling Team?

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1119061/index.htm

http://www.triathica.com/getting-serious-about-your-fitness/

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Armstrong historical statements in support of WADA/USADA?

Anyone know of any links to statements made by Armstrong in support of WADA, USADA, the whole process, etc?

The more the merrier. Please limit this thread to links to such sources.

 

[Runitout]

It could be hearsay. Betsey did not witness Lance doping, but rather she witnessed Lance telling his doctors that he doped. If the statement is offered to prove that Lance did, in fact, dope, it would be hearsay unless one of the exceptions to hearsay applied. Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, a statement by a party is an exception to the hearsay rule. Thus, as long as Lance is a party in the case, Betsey's testimony that she heard Lance tell his doctors that he doped would not be inadmissible hearsay evidence.

Not sure about US law, but in most common law countries, the evidence of the statement (what did LA tell his doctor?) is direct evidence and admissible; the truth of the statement (ie was LA telling the truth to his doctor?) is hearsay: however, the evidence would be admissible as an admission against interest.

I'm not qualified to comment on the application to US law. It certainly doesn't help to have the media bandy about terms like 'hearsay' when they have no idea what they mean.

on a related note, the media's faith in circumstantial evidence (eg, tests) instead of direct evidence (eyewitness testimony) is bizarre. This isn't ID evidence of a stranger, it's direct evidence of participation in a conspiracy. It's hard to find more compelling, probative evidence.

 

[Maxiton]

Very well written. Right on the money. Another reason why the UCI needs a total flush.

Seriously. Time to call Roto-Rooter.

 

[BroDeal]

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

For whatever it is worth, I'll toss this in here where it will sink into the abyss of crap, never to be seen again.

Open letter to the peloton.

http://www.podiumcafe.com/2012/9/4/...millar-j-vaughters-and-anyone-else-in-the-pro