So what is it about Lance?

[Race Radio]

I agree with most of the sentiments already here but some of the Landis allegations gave me even more reson to dislike him.

The allegation about the positive test at Tour de Suisse in 01 and Lance and Bruyneel travelling to Lausanne to pay of the UCI. Yes seems outlandish but the evidence that Dr.Maserati dug up recently makes it very likely it happened.

Lance raced in one race only immediately after the Tour in 2001 and that race took place in Lausanne!!! I decided to do some research around this, in 99/00 Lance flew straight back to the US after the Tour not competing in any post Tour races. From 2002 on he competed in a number of the big-bucks criteriums traditionally held in Northern Europe.

2001 just stands out because it was one race only, a non-traditional post Tour race and an unlikely race for Tour champions to race, it seemed like a local race for most of the Swiss guys. The timing and the place just look too suspicious and I would totally believe the real reason Lance was in Lausanne in 2001 was to pay of the UCI.

So Lance was not just doping, he was caught after 2 Tour wins but bribed the UCI(I know not earth-shattering), what other big name rider got this kind of protection.

Easier to hide payment when your appearance fee comes in cash. Just hand it over after the race

 

[roundabout]

2001 just stands out because it was one race only, a non-traditional post Tour race and an unlikely race for Tour champions to race, it seemed like a local race for most of the Swiss guys. The timing and the place just look too suspicious and I would totally believe the real reason Lance was in Lausanne in 2001 was to pay of the UCI.

But why? It is an invitational race with great history that in the 90's took place about a week after the Tour. Do you think Armstrong would have passed the chance to collect some easy money for 28 minutes of racing? Or does he have to pay off the UCI in person?

 

[jimmypop]

My next issue with the guy is my belief that not only did the dope probably cause his cancer, but once he was given the new lease, he merely ramped it up again.

This is a stretch. Let's not delve into fantasy. There's the potential that the EPO may have exacerbated his tumor growth, but I'm only parroting what other experts have said.

 

[BotanyBay]

This is a stretch. Let's not delve into fantasy. There's the potential that the EPO may have exacerbated his tumor growth, but I'm only parroting what other experts have said.

It's not fantasy. It's smart to inquire about this.

Testosterone is a homone produced by the testes. If a person is taking external testosterone in high quantities, their own body eventually ceases to produce it (it's part of the biofeedback system). The body says "why bother?".

So here's a guy messing with his endocrine system, and specifically with the organ that became cancerous. 2+2 =?

 

[D-Queued]

It's not fantasy. It's smart to inquire about this.

Testosterone is a homone produced by the testes. If a person is taking external testosterone in high quantities, their own body eventually ceases to produce it (it's part of the biofeedback system). The body says "why bother?".

So here's a guy messing with his endocrine system, and specifically with the organ that became cancerous. 2+2 =?

We don't need the advanced math here. I am comfortable with 1 + 1.

Dave.

 

[Bike Boy]

@ AussieGoddess

Ever since I heard about this construction (livestrong.org and livestrong.com) about a year ago, my view on this person (Armstrong) has changed dramatically.
I haven't read through all the interesting threads yet on this forum, but I've started. Honestly I don't know exactly what to read and what not to read, so I'm very confused, but I loved your answer. Thanks to you, now I now what to look for.

Now I'm actually a bit embarrased to admit that I was a big Armstrong fan duing the winning years, and I know I share this story with a lot of people on this forum, but unlike many of them I never felt it was neccesary to convert into a hater.
I will probably always be fascinated to some degree by Armstrong's desire to beat cancer and distinguish him self in one of the toughest sports in the world, but now I have seen so much evidence suggesting that he really is a fraud.

While this "evidence" is sinking in, I get more and more sick.
I'm sick and tired of all the nonsense comming from Mr. Armstrong and his PR machine. And I have to say I hope Jeff will bring him down.

 

[tubularglue]

Why it happened?

No one knows why lance Armstrong got cancer

Fact

My doc called the cancer, dirty cells, and once in existence - depending on type either reproduce at a slow rate or quickly and exponentially

No rhyme nor reason to this. The chemo, or combinations of, target these cells and destoy them at a rapid rate. The body is in shock. Either the body can handle it or not.

Aussiegoddess:

Sometimes it gets worse before it gets better, but in the process you get better. All the luck

Docs hypothesis as to the origin, but it is just a guessing game.

So I believe his roll of the dice came up cancer. Just a thought

 

[PotentialPro]

It's not fantasy. It's smart to inquire about this.

Testosterone is a homone produced by the testes. If a person is taking external testosterone in high quantities, their own body eventually ceases to produce it (it's part of the biofeedback system). The body says "why bother?".

So here's a guy messing with his endocrine system, and specifically with the organ that became cancerous. 2+2 =?

Add in that some were trying out HGH as well around this time. The cocktail of HGH and Testosterone is known and documented to accelerate tumor growth.

 

[BotanyBay]

Add in that some were trying out HGH as well around this time. The cocktail of HGH and Testosterone is known and documented to accelerate tumor growth.

Thank you. Regardless, it is absurd for human beings to go about thinking that they've mastered the endocrine system in such a manner that they can mix cocktails of hormones, abuse them regularly and then not have some medical consequences.

If people think that the side-effects of these compounds are restricted to TDF victories, they're foolhardy.

 

[BotanyBay]

Why it happened?

No one knows why lance Armstrong got cancer

Fact

My doc called the cancer, dirty cells, and once in existence - depending on type either reproduce at a slow rate or quickly and exponentially

No rhyme nor reason to this. The chemo, or combinations of, target these cells and destoy them at a rapid rate. The body is in shock. Either the body can handle it or not.

Aussiegoddess:

Sometimes it gets worse before it gets better, but in the process you get better. All the luck

Docs hypothesis as to the origin, but it is just a guessing game.

So I believe his roll of the dice came up cancer. Just a thought

We all have cancer cells in our bodies. Right now at this moment. When it is medically determined that we have "Cancer", it means that they reproduce at a rate faster than our bodies can deal with, or our bodies have a reduced ability to deal with (and dispose of) them.

I have no idea why Lance got testicular cancer, but I feel strongly that he was taking drugs that interfered with the testes' intended hormonal functionality. I think we've learned a lot in the past 50 years that we're just scratching the surface of how chemical messengers work within the body, and I think we (as a society) have probably made some huge blunders in believing that we've accomplished significant steps toward mastering them. I think these people are playing with fire, and it is absolutely possible that Lance was burned.

Think about it, if it turns out we were all right about him, it will mean that he was deeply involved in doing all manner of manipulating his body chemistry to suit his desires. And he was probably doing it for a VERY long time. I can say this: Despite his athletic accomplishments, I would not want to inherit his body and look forward to old age living IN it. That body's been thorougly abused.

 

[tubularglue]

yeah,

i dunno
i never was on any program or intaking any drugs when my two bouts with cancer surfaced.

I am ok with it.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

This thread has jumped from one point to the next, so I will try and help address a few points raised.

LA's Ped use caused his cancer.
Lance was a member of the USAC juniour team in 1990 - on another USAC team 3 of the four riders (Strock, Keiter, Latta) all suffered various illness that forced them out of cycling. They had been injected with various products that they were told were "viatamins" which had a deibatating effect on their immune systems. Many of these riders sued USAC (and Carmicheal) successfully.


LA's cancer should have shown up during testing:
Scottish footballer Alan Stubbs had his testicular cancer in 1999 diagnosed after failing a dope test that year.
As LA would have been tested (at the latest) after his win in Fleche Wallone it should have prompted a failed test.

Payment to the UCI in 2001:
It was the only 'post Tour' event LA entered, avoiding the lucrative crits in Holland & Belgium and he was back in the USA the morning after the race.

 

[BotanyBay]

As LA would have been tested (at the latest) after his win in Fleche Wallone

You think that in 1996, the UCI was really testing every sample they collected? Or even collecting every sample they should have collected? Remember, this is more than 2 years pre-Festina.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You think that in 1996, the UCI was really testing every sample they collected? Or even collecting every sample they should have collected? Remember, this is more than 2 years pre-Festina.

Certainly there was not the amount of testing that there is now - so I would believe that most of the (few) samples collected would have indeed been tested. I gave the Fleche Wallone as an example - it would be incredible if the "most tested athlete in sporting history™' was not tested in 1996.

 

[BotanyBay]

Certainly there was not the amount of testing that there is now - so I would believe that most of the (few) samples collected would have indeed been tested. I gave the Fleche Wallone as an example - it would be incredible if the "most tested athlete in sporting history™' was not tested in 1996.

I've read stories in recent years (past two years) where race officials (of big events) routinely dumped the collected samples. Testing was far from uniform.

The UCI was playing "sweep it under the rug" for many years even BEFORE Festina. It certainly could have happened at FW.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I've read stories in recent years (past two years) where race officials (of big events) routinely dumped the collected samples. Testing was far from uniform.

The UCI was playing "sweep it under the rug" for many years even BEFORE Festina. It certainly could have happened at FW.

The only story of "race officials dumping samples" that I am aware of is from the Coors Classic in the 80's.
I think testing was done - although it is clear that the riders had found ways of circumventing them (which is the point re LA in 1996).

An example is Sean Kelly was 'caught' in 1984 as the top 3 were controlled at the semi-classic Paris-Brussels - unfortunately the stimul Kelly was positive for was from a 'clean' sample from a member of staff of the team who had taken it to stay awake for a long drive.

 

[Mambo95]

LA's cancer should have shown up during testing:
Scottish footballer Alan Stubbs had his testicular cancer in 1999 diagnosed after failing a dope test that year.
As LA would have been tested (at the latest) after his win in Fleche Wallone it should have prompted a failed test.

Two points here:

1. Tests in 1999 weren't necessarily exactly the same as they were in 1996. And there's no uniform test. Different sports focus on different things.

2. Stubbs never failed the test. The tester spotted an elevated level of a hormone and knew that it pointed to cancer (in men).

Armstrong has most likely done many bad things, but thinking he faked cancer is extreme tin-foil hat territory.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Two points here:

1. Tests in 1999 weren't necessarily exactly the same as they were in 1996. And there's no uniform test. Different sports focus on different things.

2. Stubbs never failed the test. The tester spotted an elevated level of a hormone and knew that it pointed to cancer (in men).

Armstrong has most likely done many bad things, but thinking he faked cancer is extreme tin-foil hat territory.

I never suggested LA 'faked his cancer' - I was pointing out to an earlier comment wondering why the cancer was not detected by a routine PED test.

You need to read 'From Lance to Landis' - as it clearly states that the elevated hormones would have been noticed in Armstrongs sample as was done with Stubbs.

 

[Mambo95]

You need to read 'From Lance to Landis' - as it clearly states that the elevated hormones would have been noticed in Armstrongs sample as was done with Stubbs.

I remember seeing a programme about Stubbs around the time he had cancer (probably Football Focus). The only reason the cancer noticed was because the tester, who knew that it was a sign of cancer, spotted it. They weren't specifically testing for it (it's only found in pregnant women or cancerous men and wasn't/isn't available synthetically).

 

[ferryman]

Two points here:

1. Tests in 1999 weren't necessarily exactly the same as they were in 1996. And there's no uniform test. Different sports focus on different things.

2. Stubbs never failed the test. The tester spotted an elevated level of a hormone and knew that it pointed to cancer (in men).

Armstrong has most likely done many bad things, but thinking he faked cancer is extreme tin-foil hat territory.

Agreed not a failed test. But the abnormalities detected in his urine did lead to his testicular cancer diagnosis (and thankfully successful treatment).

And Dr M, he is also English not Scottish.

 

[AussieGoddess]

@ AussieGoddess

Ever since I heard about this construction (livestrong.org and livestrong.com) about a year ago, my view on this person (Armstrong) has changed dramatically.
I haven't read through all the interesting threads yet on this forum, but I've started. Honestly I don't know exactly what to read and what not to read, so I'm very confused, but I loved your answer. Thanks to you, now I now what to look for.

Now I'm actually a bit embarrased to admit that I was a big Armstrong fan duing the winning years, and I know I share this story with a lot of people on this forum, but unlike many of them I never felt it was neccesary to convert into a hater.
I will probably always be fascinated to some degree by Armstrong's desire to beat cancer and distinguish him self in one of the toughest sports in the world, but now I have seen so much evidence suggesting that he really is a fraud.

While this "evidence" is sinking in, I get more and more sick.
I'm sick and tired of all the nonsense comming from Mr. Armstrong and his PR machine. And I have to say I hope Jeff will bring him down.

yeh I was a fan too ... . these threads here have some good links
one (though the threads pretty long and there is a lot of crap
two (the first article linked is great)
three

Other points
- Bribing UCI - good article here ... it asks the questions I wouldnt mind being answered.

- cheating - good article here

essentially its saying that TdF is a team event. You cant win without a great team (attacking, dragging back breaks, support etc), so even if HE didnt dope, its proven that many of his major support riders did (at least 5 that I can think of) .... so isnt that cheating by the team anyway?

Cancer - we dont know WHAT causes cancer .... but we do know that specific drugs (tobacco, alcohol etc) DO contribute substantially. Its not a stretch by any means to suggest that testosterone, HGH, EPO etc will be a substantial contributor.

As for the testing, HCG is a hormone found in pregnant women. If a mans urine has HCG in it - there is a good chance he is either doping or has testicular cancer. They test for it as an indication of doping, so any urine sample that was collected should have been tested (is a simple dipstick into the sample which I can buy for $1 off the internet .... so no excuse for not testing for it). Any BFP (big fat posative) should have been flagged and investigated. So yes, the cancer should have been picked up if he had actually been tested.....

 

[red_flanders]

Agreed not a failed test. But the abnormalities detected in his urine did lead to his testicular cancer diagnosis (and thankfully successful treatment).

And Dr M, he is also English not Scottish.

Are you referring to Armstrong? That's not what he says in his book.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I remember seeing a programme about Stubbs around the time he had cancer (probably Football Focus). The only reason the cancer noticed was because the tester, who knew that it was a sign of cancer, spotted it. They weren't specifically testing for it (it's only found in pregnant women or cancerous men and wasn't/isn't available synthetically).

Agreed not a failed test. But the abnormalities detected in his urine did lead to his testicular cancer diagnosis (and thankfully successful treatment).

And Dr M, he is also English not Scottish.

I am not a big follower of soccer - so I was recounting Stubbs story from memory. Ok, he is not Scottish but English and from recall if Stubbs had not been diagnosed with testicular cancer it would have declared a doping positive.

Regardless as was stated in 'From Lance to Landis' the elevated levels should have been picked up if LA was controlled in 1996.
Such levels should have been suspicious of a positive test.

 

[Mambo95]

Regardless as was stated in 'From Lance to Landis' the elevated levels should have been picked up if LA was controlled in 1996.
Such levels should have been suspicious of a positive test.

Yeah, but Walsh has an agenda, the same as anyone else*. He would hardly be the first journalist to ask make some supersitions to aid his cause. He's never been a football journalist (or a doctor). While a lot of his evidence has great weight, he does tend to overstretch at times. This is probably one of them.


*For example, see this analysis of his fanboy defences of Sean Kelly (and Maertens and Merckx) back in the day: http://www.podiumcafe.com/2010/11/10/1805511/on-doping-and-david-walsh

 

[Dettol]

Yeah, but Walsh has an agenda, the same as anyone else*. He would hardly be the first journalist to ask make some supersitions to aid his cause. He's never been a football journalist (or a doctor). While a lot of his evidence has great weight, he does tend to overstretch at times. This is probably one of them.


*For example, see this analysis of his fanboy defences of Sean Kelly (and Maertens and Merckx) back in the day: http://www.podiumcafe.com/2010/11/10/1805511/on-doping-and-david-walsh

This is covered a little bit in 'Lance Armstrong's War' the explanation given was when Walsh's son died in an accident it turned his world upside down. He then decided to be a more honest person like his son was. Hence the change of heart.