Official Lance Armstrong Thread **READ POST #1 BEFORE POSTING**

[Anonymous]

Lance flushed Cancer down the Toilet.

F Cancer

Lance's doctors flushed his cancer down the toilet. What you are saying is like saying that the house is responsible for the exterminators getting rid of the rats and roaches lol.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

If upsetting Cobblestoned "in to action" is the aim of the dialog, isn't it just trolling for a pavlovian response?

As you say "if" it was - but it wasn't, RR quoted Landis.
Cobblestoned reaction was to discuss RR - not what he said, thats trolling.

Obviously doping may have caused (or aggravated) Armstrong's cancer. I said that in my previous post. Just as obviously, it may not have caused (or aggravated) Armstrong's cancer.

The answer will forever be unknown. Time, physician-patient privilege, and ordinary medical uncertainty guarantee that there will never be a definitive answer to that question. Yet you want to debate it?

Are you the forum Police?

I don't want to debate it- but it is worthy of discussion.

 

[fatandfast]

Lance's doctors flushed his cancer down the toilet. What you are saying is like saying that the house is responsible for the exterminators getting rid of the rats and roaches lol.

wow.you may want to get some quotes from Armstrong's medical team about his role in overcoming his cancer. If he had roaches, they said he played a large roll in the abatement of the unwanted.
It is really hard to draw lines, cancer,champion, fundraiser, drug user,ego maniac but the lines are there. Armstrong has done lots wrong ,no clear start. Maybe screwing over his loving ,faithful wife.
His post cancer persona are full of ugly anecdotes. He was an excellent patient by the description of people who know what the good ones and bad ones act like. I know it's not what anybody wants to hear but I respect the doctors that spoke of his qualities

 

[Berzin]

The only reason Armstrong has any goodwill left at this stage is because of his 'cancer work', if it is shown that his own doping gave him cancer that will go to.

The anecdotal evidence against this premise is that so many other riders doped using the same products but Armstrong is one of the few (if any) pro cyclists riding in the European peloton that was stricken by the disease during the last 20 or so years.

If taking PED's can be definitively linked to cancer, why are Jalabert, Virenque, Gianetti and a whole host of others from that period still walking around in good health?

Taking stuff like HgH may have exacerbated the spread of Armstrong's cancer, but we'll never know for sure.

What is upsetting is how he decided to go on an even stronger program after his diagnosis, researching HemAssist as he was lying in a hospital bed.

And how is it that he hasn't relapsed from all the crap he took during his seven-year reign?

His post cancer persona are full of ugly anecdotes. He was an excellent patient by the description of people who know what the good ones and bad ones act like. I know it's not what anybody wants to hear but I respect the doctors that spoke of his qualities.

Qualities like making a huge donation to the hospital that treated him, who despite the evidence cannot confirm the name of the physician who asked about his PED use during his career up to the point?

Yeah, whatever dude.

 

[Polish]

Lance's doctors flushed his cancer down the toilet. What you are saying is like saying that the house is responsible for the exterminators getting rid of the rats and roaches lol.

No TFF, Lance flushed it.

But only after researching all the different toilet bowl designs.
And bringing in plumbers and getting second opinions.
Surrounding himself with supportive family and friends.
Only then was the cancer flushed.
Lazer Like Flush.

The plumbers called it a miracle.
Lance called it luck.

Sure, whatever.
A miraculously lucky flush.

Don't believe it.

 

[MacRoadie]

The anecdotal evidence against this premise is that so many other riders doped using the same products but Armstrong is one of the few (if any) pro cyclists riding in the European peloton that was stricken by the disease during the last 20 or so years.

If taking PED's can be definitively linked to cancer, why are Jalabert, Virenque, Gianetti and a whole host of others from that period still walking around in good health?

Taking stuff like HgH may have exacerbated the spread of Armstrong's cancer, but we'll never know for sure.

What is upsetting is how he decided to go on an even stronger program after his diagnosis, researching HemAssist as he was lying in a hospital bed.

And how is it that he hasn't relapsed from all the crap he took during his seven-year reign?

I'm with you on this one. I think there is plenty of evidence that LA is a tool. To heap on the "he gave himself cancer" angle as some sort of poetic justice is taking it a bit too far.

It's like two old women gossiping about a young girl's assault, as if the girl somehow had it coming, and that the end result was somehow justified. "Well, I heard she had been drinking". "Yes, and I heard she was 'that kind of girl'". "Oh, and did you see how she was dressed?".

The guy got cancer. How he got it and why he got it (especially if he was doing what many others were doing) shouldn't matter. My mother and father both died of cancer and I wouldn't wish it on anyone, for any reason.

Let's let his overt behavior and his treatment of others be the standard by which he is measured.

 

[MarkvW]

As you say "if" it was - but it wasn't, RR quoted Landis.
Cobblestoned reaction was to discuss RR - not what he said, thats trolling.


Are you the forum Police?

I don't want to debate it- but it is worthy of discussion.

What is there to discuss about Armstrong's cancer?
Did doping cause it? Maybe, but we'll never know.
What else is there to discuss on this topic?

 

[MacRoadie]

No TFF, Lance flushed it.

But only after researching all the different toilet bowl designs.
And bringing in plumbers and getting second opinions.
Surrounding himself with supportive family and friends.
Only then was the cancer flushed.
Lazer Like Flush.

The plumbers called it a miracle.
Lance called it luck.

Sure, whatever.
A miraculously lucky flush.

Don't believe it.

As per my above post, if you are so certain that Lance was so responsible for his own survivorship, does that in turn mean that all those who don't beat cancer are responsible for their own defeat?

Is it my mom and dad's fault that they died of cancer? Didn't have your BS "laser-like focus"?

Both sides of this stupid debate are disgusting and insulting.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

What is there to discuss about Armstrong's cancer?
Did doping cause it? Maybe, but we'll never know.
What else is there to discuss on this topic?

So, because we cannot definitively know if his taking PEDs cause his cancer we should not discuss it?

 

[MacRoadie]

So, because we cannot definitively know if his taking PEDs cause his cancer we should not discuss it?

It's one thing to discuss it, it's quite another to throw 6 or 7 references into a post in support of your position.

There is a fine line between providing some factual basis for a point of view, and overtly populating a post with so many references that it becomes apparent that it is the forum version of yelling louder or using a bigger hammer.

 

[Race Radio]

To dismiss the idea that doping caused Armstrong's cancer is erroneous. To assert that it was the cause is erroneous. No "evidence" (even in the loosest Maserati sense of the term) can be developed to persuasively establish either proposition. The doping might have caused or accelerated his cancer, or it might not have. None of this is controversial.

Not exactly.

You are correct, there is much that points to Armstrong's doping acceleration Armstrong's cancer. There is also significant evidence pointing to it being a key initiator.

There is a

direct link between the use of cortisone and immune suppression

http://velonews.competitor.com/2006/04/news/six-years-later-strock-case-comes-to-court_9763

quite rare to see such a symptomatic case of Parvovirus in an ordinarily healthy young Caucasian male. It’s almost unheard of to see the kind of symptoms that I suffered. In that population, it’s usually it’s a viral infection that is no big deal. This is consistent with an immunosupressed state..........which is typical of an immunocompromised state such as induced by cortisone.

There is much to indicate that Cortisone use can activate the HPC virius. It is no surprise that 4 guys on the national team at the same time Lachuga, Strock, Kieter, and Armstrong all developed HVP related issues.

In fact the cancer that Armstrong, and Lachuga, had has an 85% correlation with HPV.

http://vir.sgmjournals.org/content/79/3/573.full.pdf

85% is persuasive for me.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

It's one thing to discuss it, it's quite another to throw 6 or 7 references into a post in support of your position.

There is a fine line between providing some factual basis for a point of view, and overtly populating a post with so many references that it becomes apparent that it is the forum version of yelling louder or using a bigger hammer.

That is the only thing I am on about.

 

[MacRoadie]

Here are my suggestions:

Polish can go the Livestrong web site, or those of the American Cancer Society, Susan G. Komen, etc. and post that they all need to get "laser-like focus" and cure themsleves, while chastising anyone losing their battle with cancer for not trying as hard as Lance did.

Everyone else can go to the same sites and post their collective disdain for anyone who has died of lung cancer due to smoking, mouth or throat cancer due to chewing tobacco or alcohol, or liver cancer/cirrhosis due to alcohol. They had it coming too. Should have known better. Read the label next time, etc.

 

[fatandfast]

The anecdotal evidence against this premise is that so many other riders doped using the same products but Armstrong is one of the few (if any) pro cyclists riding in the European peloton that was stricken by the disease during the last 20 or so years.

If taking PED's can be definitively linked to cancer, why are Jalabert, Virenque, Gianetti and a whole host of others from that period still walking around in good health?

Taking stuff like HgH may have exacerbated the spread of Armstrong's cancer, but we'll never know for sure.

What is upsetting is how he decided to go on an even stronger program after his diagnosis, researching HemAssist as he was lying in a hospital bed.

And how is it that he hasn't relapsed from all the crap he took during his seven-year reign?



Qualities like making a huge donation to the hospital that treated him, who despite the evidence cannot confirm the name of the physician who asked about his PED use during his career up to the point?

Yeah, whatever dude.

dude that is ugly. You must have never known anybody in grave condition. Donations are not uncommon. In an exam room if a doctor asked what kind of substances have you taken and it wasn't written down how can they regurgitate information that while important to somebody's lawsuit played little role in the treatment of their patient. The thing about no relapse is just........f-ckt. Really you want doctors to do a substandard job to help vent what you see as justice? The fact that they cured him speaks volumes about the doctors. After all they were probably in the same room w his ego and self worth.
what would any doctor have to gain about getting into a years old lawsuit against one of his/her patients that hinged on something said in confidence to them during treatment? Do I believe Betsy and Frank, yes. Do I think they grossly over estimated how important things were to people un-envolved in a lawsuit against Lance? yes again.

 

[Velodude]

dude that is ugly. You must have never known anybody in grave condition. Donations are not uncommon. In an exam room if a doctor asked what kind of substances have you taken and it wasn't written down how can they regurgitate information that while important to somebody's lawsuit played little role in the treatment of their patient. The thing about no relapse is just........f-ckt. Really you want doctors to do a substandard job to help vent what you see as justice? The fact that they cured him speaks volumes about the doctors. After all they were probably in the same room w his ego and self worth.
what would any doctor have to gain about getting into a years old lawsuit against one of his/her patients that hinged on something said in confidence to them during treatment? Do I believe Betsy and Frank, yes. Do I think they grossly over estimated how important things were to people un-envolved in a lawsuit against Lance? yes again.

Adding to the correct perspective.

You are forgetting that a doctor, who at the time of the SCA Tribunal hearing in 2005 was a board member of Livestrong, swore a false affidavit that he was present in the hospital room on the date and time in question and swore he never heard the conversation about Armstrong's history of PED use.

Three witnesses also present in the hospital room could not recognise him by his photograph as being one of the doctors.

In 2006 that doctor's current employers received a $500,000 donation from the Lance Armstrong Foundation ("Livestrong").

A thanks for risking perjury donation consistent with Mr. Armstrong's values.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Adding to the correct perspective.

You are forgetting that a doctor, who at the time of the SCA Tribunal hearing in 2005 was a board member of Livestrong, swore a false affidavit that he was present in the hospital room on the date and time in question and swore he never heard the conversation about Armstrong's history of PED use.

Three witnesses also present in the hospital room could not recognise him by his photograph as being one of the doctors.

In 2006 that doctor's current employers received a $500,000 donation from the Lance Armstrong Foundation ("Livestrong").

A thanks for risking perjury donation consistent with Mr. Armstrong's values.

To the highlighted - I am pretty sure the Doc didn't say he was in the room. (Therefore he would be correct in saying that he did not hear an admission.)

If he had it would have contradicted Armstrongs testimony that no Doctors entered the room.

 

[Berzin]

To the highlighted - I am pretty sure the Doc didn't say he was in the room. (Therefore he would be correct in saying that he did not hear an admission.)

If he had it would have contradicted Armstrongs testimony that no Doctors entered the room.

The $500,000 question-so if a doctor wasn't in the room, who was it that asked Armstrong whether he had used PED's?

And if this person was NOT a doctor, why was he in the room asking such questions?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The $500,000 question-so if a doctor wasn't in the room, who was it that asked Armstrong whether he had used PED's?

And if this person was NOT a doctor, why was he in the room asking such questions?

A doctor was in the room - but it was not Dr. Nichols.

Indiana University Medical Center was a training hospital with lots of Doctors and student Doctors there.

 

[Benotti69]

i would not be surprised if the Feds have interviewed the Doctor who was in the room.

 

[Square-pedaller]

He was an excellent patient by the description of people who know what the good ones and bad ones act like. I know it's not what anybody wants to hear but I respect the doctors that spoke of his qualities

I thought that medical opinion had changed over the last couple of decades, and that dctors no longer think that a person's outlook (optimistic/pessimistic) has any effect on the prognosis. If that's the case, in what way was LA an 'excellent' patient?

 

[MarkvW]

Not exactly.

You are correct, there is much that points to Armstrong's doping acceleration Armstrong's cancer. There is also significant evidence pointing to it being a key initiator.

There is a


http://velonews.competitor.com/2006/04/news/six-years-later-strock-case-comes-to-court_9763



There is much to indicate that Cortisone use can activate the HPC virius. It is no surprise that 4 guys on the national team at the same time Lachuga, Strock, Kieter, and Armstrong all developed HVP related issues.

In fact the cancer that Armstrong, and Lachuga, had has an 85% correlation with HPV.

http://vir.sgmjournals.org/content/79/3/573.full.pdf

85% is persuasive for me.

I assume that when you say "HPC", "HVP", and HPV that you mean human parvovirus B-19, because that B-19 study is your only link to Armstrong.

Your "percentage" doesn't factor in the possibility that if HPV started causing cancer it did so independently of the steroid mechanism.

Your "percentage" doesn't factor in the possibility that the "correlation" you identify in that one study does not match up with causation. Given that study, one could conclude that Parvovirus B-19 is caused by cancer or its treatment as easily as you can conclude that B-19 causes cancer. In fact, that increased risk is discussed in at least one article (by Sung-Hsin Kuo in the Journal of Clinical Microbiology). The velonews article you quote says that human parvovirus is "usually benign."

Your "percentage" is based on a study that involved only 39 patients. From that one study, one cannot reasonably conclude that there is an 85% chance of anything regarding Lance Armstrong.

Very misleading. Shame on you.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

i would not be surprised if the Feds have interviewed the Doctor who was in the room.

Actually, I would.
They are building a case against a criminal enterprise, not an individual doper, they have the statements of Landis, Hamilton & Hincapie so they have that over Armstrong.

But I would assume the legal team of SCA will be keeping a close eye on proceedings.

 

[Merckx index]

He was an excellent patient by the description of people who know what the good ones and bad ones act like.

The implications of this statement—that “good” people do what it takes to survive cancer, and “bad” people don’t—is total BS. People survive or don’t survive cancer largely because of factors out of their control. The one thing they can do—if they have enough money, or if they live in a country that doesn’t deny health care to people who aren’t rich—is find good treatment. After that, it’s largely a matter of what type of cancer it is, and how soon after it developed that it was diagnosed and treated. The only relevant factor we know for sure is that LA let the cancer progress far further than he should have before seeking treatment. Probably because he was an athlete accustomed to denying pain or pathology. This is on the record, and indicates that in this respect, he was just damn lucky to survive (though it’s not unusual, see below).

What is upsetting is how he decided to go on an even stronger program after his diagnosis, researching HemAssist as he was lying in a hospital bed.

Do you have a link for this?

What is there to discuss about Armstrong's cancer?
Did doping cause it? Maybe, but we'll never know.
What else is there to discuss on this topic?

As I said before, if he took EPO when he returned in 2009—a question that may very well be answered at some point in the future—that has huge ramifications for his image as a spokesman to cure cancer. Beyond that, a discussion of this topic just might be considered by young riders who are considering the pros and cons of doping.

There are many examples of factors that result in a relatively small but significant increase in cancers (e.g., second-hand smoke; certain kinds of foods). It’s possible that certain PEDs are in that class. Because the effect is relatively small, it might not be at all apparent in looking at a population of riders. Obviously it would be very difficult to do a rigorous epidemiological study of them, particularly when very few of them will admit to doping, and even those that do, we don’t know exactly when, for how long, what, and how much.

There is much to indicate that Cortisone use can activate the HPC virius. It is no surprise that 4 guys on the national team at the same time Lachuga, Strock, Kieter, and Armstrong all developed HVP related issues.

In fact the cancer that Armstrong, and Lachuga, had has an 85% correlation with HPV.

This is a very interesting link, and suggests an actual mechanism that could account for some causative effect of certain PEDs on cancer. This study found, in essence, that while evidence of parvovirus infection is present in the circulation of a majority of subjects (both with and without testicular cancer), it was also found in the testis of a large majority of individuals with testicular cancer, but not in any controls. Antibody examination showed that the virus was not in the blood as a result of acute infection, IOW, it had been around for some time. In individuals who developed testicular cancer, the virus found its way into the testis.

We don’t know why, but one reasonable possibility, as RR notes, is that immunosuppression could result in inadequate neutralization of the virus, allowing it to infect the testis and possibly trigger events leading to cancer. The relationship between viruses and cancer is heavily researched now, and several cancers are known to have viral causes.

85% is persuasive for me.

The same figure appeared in another statistic in this paper:

[testicular] cancer mortality rates are now declining and the 5 year relative survival rate is now over 85 %

This paper was published in 1998, not long after LA’s bout with cancer. I guess 85% of the population has laser-like focus, Polish.

Your "percentage" doesn't factor in the possibility that if HPV started causing cancer it did so independently of the steroid mechanism.

Of course. I think RR was just noting that immunosuppression might increase the chances of a virus--already known to be present in large proportion of the population--infecting a tissue and causing cancer there.

Your "percentage" doesn't factor in the possibility that the "correlation" you identify in that one study does not match up with causation. Given that study, one could conclude that Parvovirus B-19 is caused by cancer or its treatment as easily as you can conclude that B-19 causes cancer. In fact, that increased risk is discussed in at least one article (by Sung-Hsin Kuo in the Journal of Clinical Microbiology). The velonews article you quote says that human parvovirus is "usually benign."

No, the fact that controls have just as great a seroprevalence of the virus is evidence that the virus is not "caused by cancer". You could argue that cancer began from an independent mechanism, and the cancerous tissue in some manner made it possible for the virus to infect it. But given the strong evidence that viruses can have a causative role in cancers, that would probably be considered by most researchers as less likely.

The authors raise both possibilities in their conclusions, though emphasizing the notion that the virus could have caused the cancer:

In conclusion, we believe that parvovirus B19 might play some role, direct or indirect, in the aetiology or development of testicular GCT based on our findings, i.e. the presence of parvovirus B19 DNA sequences in the majority of GCT investigated, the absence of B19 in non-tumour testis and, with the exception of one patient, the absence of acute B19 infection at the time of the surgery. Alternatively, B19 may infect the tumour tissue.

Yes, the virus usually is benign, as are many viruses known to cause cancer. The question is why or how it becomes malignant, and immunosuppression is a very real possibility.

Your "percentage" is based on a study that involved only 39 patients. From that one study, one cannot reasonably conclude that there is an 85% chance of anything regarding Lance Armstrong.

We certainly can't conclude that drug-induced immunosuppression was a cause of LA's cancer, agreed. As I said before, the value and interest of RR's links is that it suggests a possible connection between certain PEDs and cancer, which ought to be of general interest in this forum regardless of whether it's relevant to LA's cancer. And again, if LA was shown to take one of these drugs at a time when evidence for this connection was known, shame on him. The article RR cited was published in 1998. It would be interesting to know if LA's doctors knew about this work, given that his TUE for cortisone was at about the same time.

Bottom line: No one is saying this work proves anything, for anyone let alone LA. But I find it very relevant to this thread.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18539403

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12185288

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10748869

Some studies since have found an association of the virus with germ cell tumors, though in a lower proportion of subjects. AFAIK, whether the virus precedes the tumor or vice-versa has not yet been settled. The second of the three studies linked above concludes that the tumor comes first, followed by infection of the virus. But as I understand it, they came to this conclusion by showing there was no difference in seropositivity (virus infection in the bloodstream) between controls and individuals with cancer. This does not speak to the possibility that some individuals in the cancer group might have had different environmental circumstances--such as exposure to immunosuppressive agents--that would increase the likelihood of any virus present going to the testis and causing cancer. As far as I can see, these authors and others are assuming that if the virus causes cancer, the initial infection should be more prevalent in those who get the cancer. This is not necessarily the case if other circumstances are necessary for the virus to act.

 

[Race Radio]

snip.

Wouldn't expect anything different from you

 

[MarkvW]

Wouldn't expect anything different from you

Same sentiment here.