Urine Trouble

[flicker]

No. Rational people can view the development of Lance's cancer as an issue that begs greater investigation, given the volume of information and evidence out there that Lance doped for extended periods of time and the buse of steroids DOES increase tumor size and development rates, possibly being the cause of the cancer. People who have cancer genes are more likely to ramp up the rate at which the predisposed cancer would have developed if they abuse anabolics and peptide hormones. To ignore this is immature, ignorant and shows a narrowness of mind that is often exemplified by your posts.

I agree with you on your other points. This part I beg to differ upon.

I have spoken to 2 medical professionals and they are both athletes. They never brought up the PED usage leads to testicular cancer.

I do not know what caused Lances' cancer. If in fact he did use anabolics and peptide hormones to cause himself to contract cancer, and then lied about it I would feel sad.....for Lance. Because that is no way to live life, as a matter of fact IMO that is not a life. That is a shell and a facade as a human being, not a role model, not a spokesman.

That is how I feel about Barry Bonds, a tremendous athlete and a former sports hero for me. I do not hate Bonds though I pity him, as he lives in his own private hell.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

No. Rational people can view the development of Lance's cancer as an issue that begs greater investigation, given the volume of information and evidence out there that Lance doped for extended periods of time and the buse of steroids DOES increase tumor size and development rates, possibly being the cause of the cancer. People who have cancer genes are more likely to ramp up the rate at which the predisposed cancer would have developed if they abuse anabolics and peptide hormones. To ignore this is immature, ignorant and shows a narrowness of mind that is often exemplified by your posts.

I agree with you on your other points. This part I beg to differ upon.

I have spoken to 2 medical professionals and they are both athletes. They never brought up the PED usage leads to testicular cancer.

I do not know what caused Lances' cancer. If in fact he did use anabolics and peptide hormones to cause himself to contract cancer, and then lied about it I would feel sad.....for Lance. Because that is no way to live life, as a matter of fact IMO that is not a life. That is a shell and a facade as a human being, not a role model, not a spokesman.

That is how I feel about Barry Bonds, a tremendous athlete and a former sports hero for me. I do not hate Bonds though I pity him, as he lives in his own private hell.

It used to be that Big Tobacco denied that smoking caused cancer, too. People believed that for many decades. Now we know better, despite the attempts of Big Tobacco to hide the truth and later deny responsibility.

You "doctors" could be podiatrists, for all anyone knows. Medicine is a HIGHLY specialized field. I've known a field surgeon who would not know how to treat a sinus infection, and a cardiologist who couldn't tell a contusion from a concussion. If your two "doctors" are who you'd like to reply on to guide you on this topic, then you are ignoring a wealth of experts and researchers who have compiled proof that anabolic steroids increase tumor growth rates. It is plain old science that you are denying. But that is your choice.

That Dr. Ferrari expressed his wonderment as to whether anything he'd done had prompted Lance's cancer is all you really need to know, when it comes to anecdotal proof. He is not a stupid man. If he worries this, I wonder if there is a way to pass on the contact info for your "doctors" so he can rest easy.

 

[Granville57]

I suspect many cancer survivors are less concerned with Lance being drug-free, than they are with just having had an example of what can be done post-cancer, and how they too have a chance for excellence post-death-sentence.

This has already been quoted and highlighted, but it deserves another look.

If everything LA achieved post-cancer (his victories, financial success, etc) was as a result of a massive program of cheating and deception, then what kind of "example" is that setting for others and what type of "excellence" is that suppose to represent?

That is what I find appalling about all of this.

(btw, great post Colm)

 

[Escarabajo]

flicker, please place quotes properly. I got confused by your post for a minute.

Maybe the Moderators can help and put the brackets for him.

Thanks.

 

[flicker]

It used to be that Big Tobacco denied that smoking caused cancer, too. People believed that for many decades. Now we know better, despite the attempts of Big Tobacco to hide the truth and later deny responsibility.

You "doctors" could be podiatrists, for all anyone knows. Medicine is a HIGHLY specialized field. I've known a field surgeon who would not know how to treat a sinus infection, and a cardiologist who couldn't tell a contusion from a concussion. If your two "doctors" are who you'd like to reply on to guide you on this topic, then you are ignoring a wealth of experts and researchers who have compiled proof that anabolic steroids increase tumor growth rates. It is plain old science that you are denying. But that is your choice.

That Dr. Ferrari expressed his wonderment as to whether anything he'd done had prompted Lance's cancer is all you really need to know, when it comes to anecdotal proof. He is not a stupid man. If he worries this, I wonder if there is a way to pass on the contact info for your "doctors" so he can rest easy.

One doctor, anestesialogist 20 years practicing still actively practicing in our area says Lance is a dousche, but he never mentioned the cancer angle. Also a cyclist. The other OR nurse 25 years practicing, still practicing, also a BA. in physical sports, practiced 3 sports in college. Neither came up with the teory Lance got cancer from doping.

Of course they are not forensic specialists, nor oncologists. Are their any doctors out their who have speculated Lance got his cancer from using steroids or hormones.
By the way I am against steroids and hormones, and I do agree with you that they cause cancer, for instance Lyle Alzedo.
I pretty much knew Bonds was a steroid user when his elbows and knees went out. Nothing to do with the Balco trial, however that pretty much capped it for me.

 

[MacRoadie]

The other OR nurse 25 years practicing, still practicing, also a BA. in physical sports, practiced 3 sports in college. Neither came up with the teory Lance got cancer from doping.

Well there you go. NEVER doubt the diagnostic skills of the typical OR nurse...

 

[BotanyBay]

Cancer (c) 1999 Livestrong.com

Updated:

Cancer®
Registered Trademark, LAF.

 

[BroDeal]

One thing we definitely know is that Armstrong was using masking agents that prevented his cancer from being detected earlier by standard dope tests. If he had not been using steroids and the drugs to mask them then his cancer would not have reached stage four. His cancer should have been caught very early. His treatment should have been a breeze. His dope use caused most of his problems.

 

[flicker]

Well there you go. NEVER doubt the diagnostic skills of the typical OR nurse...

Nor a clinic veteran.

Show me one cancer specialist that has quoted, 'Mr. Lance Armstrong derived his testicular cancer from the use of illegal drugs.'

 

[mewmewmew13]

It is not idiotic to think "I know he doped, but he still helped cancer patients". When someone hears "cancer" as a diagnosis, it sounds like a death sentence. Sure, more people routinely survive skin cancers, and early detection saves a lot of other kinds of cancer, too, but realistically, for most people the emotional reaction to "You've got cancer" is "I'm gonna die soon". To survive cancer, or even to just prolong life before succumbing to cancer, people are willing to take all sorts of drugs, and endure all sorts of other painful and uncomfortable treatments. To know that you can survive it, to know that someone else has survived it, is extremely important. To know that cancer can be survived, and that life after cancer can not only be 'normal', but be championship caliber can be a very important emotional factor, and may in fact help some people survive otherwise grueling anti-cancer regimens. I suspect many cancer survivors are less concerned with Lance being drug-free, than they are with just having had an example of what can be done post-cancer, and how they too have a chance for excellence post-death-sentence.

And, frankly, when Lance is proved to have doped, if people continue to think "I don't care that he doped, he's still proof that life can be lived at a high level post-cancer", that will greatly outweigh the harm that he's doing to cycling. I won't like it (hell, I'll hardly be able to stand it) when Lance proclaims that he doped in order to provide hope to cancer patients. But having seen first-hand the role that attitude and emotion can play in fighting cancer, I will still think that being Anti-cancer is much more important than being Pro-cycling. And if any cancer patient wants to keep a "he doped, but" attitude about Lance, she/he should be ENCOURAGED to do so.

Don't let your love for cycling, clean cycling, overwhelm the vastly more important role of attitude in surviving cancer. Vilify Lance forever as a cyclist when the proof's in, but please don't attempt to strip what you view as an illusion from the attitude of anyone suffering from cancer.

Sorry GatorGene,
I understand the sharp end of that diagnosis.

Do you really think that because I am 'pro-cycling' that I am not thinking clearly when it comes to being 'anti-cancer'?

I think most folks that have had a cancer or other serious diagnoses would be disgusted to find out that their 'inspirational hero' turned out to be a complete fraud. Don't you think that most would rather look up to a person of integrity or at the very least a nice human being?

I won't even begin to go into my opinions about Lance A as a person....there are many posts previous to this one that state my thoughts very nicely, thank you.

Let the testing begin.....

 

[Colm.Murphy]

One doctor, anestesialogist 20 years practicing still actively practicing in our area says Lance is a dousche, but he never mentioned the cancer angle. Also a cyclist. The other OR nurse 25 years practicing, still practicing, also a BA. in physical sports, practiced 3 sports in college. Neither came up with the teory Lance got cancer from doping.

Of course they are not forensic specialists, nor oncologists. Are their any doctors out their who have speculated Lance got his cancer from using steroids or hormones.
By the way I am against steroids and hormones, and I do agree with you that they cause cancer, for instance Lyle Alzedo.
I pretty much knew Bonds was a steroid user when his elbows and knees went out. Nothing to do with the Balco trial, however that pretty much capped it for me.

You are stopping at the distinction that they "never came up with it". How about presenting them with some generally discussed views as to how much dope he is likely to have been using and start there with "asking" for their opinion. Their omission of, of lack of providing, a theory does not mean they directly deny a link, they just have not been prompted.

The situation with Fignon and his cancer gives us another case to debate. Guy admitted to doping and he believed that it was his doping that provoked his cancer. Guy suffered badly. Of course, tens of thousands of kids, teens and adults suffer from cancer and have not smoked or doped, though it is intellectually irresponsible to deny the probability of these external factors as cancer causing or cancer catalysts.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

Nor a clinic veteran.

Show me one cancer specialist that has quoted, 'Mr. Lance Armstrong derived his testicular cancer from the use of illegal drugs.'

I have a feeling that if Mr. Armstrong's true doping history and medical records were open to be studied there would be NO shortage of cancer specialists and researchers who would fight to be the ones to fully examine.

Again, you fall back on the theme of argument that perfectly aligns with "Most tested athlete, never tested positive... must be clean"

In this vain: That no cancer researcher or scientist has ever declared that doping caused Lance's cancer means it must not be true.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

One thing we definitely know is that Armstrong was using masking agents that prevented his cancer from being detected earlier by standard dope tests. If he had not been using steroids and the drugs to mask them then his cancer would not have reached stage four. His cancer should have been caught very early. His treatment should have been a breeze. His dope use caused most of his problems.

Was it masking agents?

Or was it simply UCI protection in the form of tossing his urine, substituting it with the urine known to be clean?

I am open to the idea that he'd been under UCI "protection" since his World title in 93. Chosen one, indeed.

 

[flicker]

You are stopping at the distinction that they "never came up with it". How about presenting them with some generally discussed views as to how much dope he is likely to have been using and start there with "asking" for their opinion. Their omission of, of lack of providing, a theory does not mean they directly deny a link, they just have not been prompted.

The situation with Fignon and his cancer gives us another case to debate. Guy admitted to doping and he believed that it was his doping that provoked his cancer. Guy suffered badly. Of course, tens of thousands of kids, teens and adults suffer from cancer and have not smoked or doped, though it is intellectually irresponsible to deny the probability of these external factors as cancer causing or cancer catalysts.

It is an interesting debate, I can not argue, you guys could be right.
I think in the future if 'my Lance' develops mysterious ailments that are obviously signals of heavy steroid usage, or hormones, you shall be proven correct.
The testicular cancer was caused by Lances drug usage is off my radar for now. Always a possibility but only a possibility, never proven.
I won't bore you with the statistics on testicular cancer on men in their 20s, athletes and non athletes.

 

[MacRoadie]

Nor a clinic veteran.

Show me one cancer specialist that has quoted, 'Mr. Lance Armstrong derived his testicular cancer from the use of illegal drugs.'

Funny, I haven't opined either way. Are you referring to yourself?

So I have this straight.

In suport of your position you present a nurse who was an athlete in college (what bearing that has on the matter is anyone's guess), and because this person (wholly unqualified to opine on oncological matters) failed to mention cancer/steroids in whatever conversation you may have had, you present that as an expert opinion on the matter.

As a counter to your position, you will only accept a "cancer specialist" specifically stating that 'Mr. Lance Armstrong derived his testicular cancer from the use of illegal drugs.'

I should never have taken you off ignore.

 

[andy1234]

Was it masking agents?

Or was it simply UCI protection in the form of tossing his urine, substituting it with the urine known to be clean?

I am open to the idea that he'd been under UCI "protection" since his World title in 93. Chosen one, indeed.

An american rider, protected in 1993? Unlikely.
At that time non European riders were still seen as outsiders.
Armstrong was unlikely to have many influential friends at that point.

 

[Anonymous]

Nor a clinic veteran.

Show me one cancer specialist that has quoted, 'Mr. Lance Armstrong derived his testicular cancer from the use of illegal drugs.'

Then the opposite could then (too) be stated;

Show me one cancer specialist that has quoted, 'Mr. Lance Armstrong did not derive his testicular cancer from the use of illegal drugs.'

It sounds just as stupid.

 

[Race Radio]

Nor a clinic veteran.

Show me one cancer specialist that has quoted, 'Mr. Lance Armstrong derived his testicular cancer from the use of illegal drugs.'

We know your goal is to troll but you need to be more low key about it

have you ever used any performance-enhancing drugs? And Lance said yes. And the doctor asked, what were they? And Lance said, growth hormone, cortisone, EPO, steroids and testosterone.

HGH?
Suppression of human growth hormone may ward off cancer

Cortisone? Ask Greg Strock and Ernie Lachuga

EPO?
Eight clinical trials have suggested that Epogen and related anemia drugs, widely used to treat the anemia caused by cancer chemotherapy, might make tumors worse or hasten the death of cancer patients.

Steroids? Livestrong says Steroids taken orally or through injection also increase a man's risk for cancer

Testosterone? Even livestrong says there is an increase possiblity of cancer. Increases Prostate Cancer Risk

 

[BroDeal]

An american rider, protected in 1993? Unlikely.
At that time non European riders were still seen as outsiders.
Armstrong was unlikely to have many influential friends at that point.

There is a possibility, perhaps a good one, that the UCI was tossing out the results of most positives. Armstrong did compete at the Olympics, though. He was one of the favorites in '92 and '96. You would think he would have been tested.

 

[flicker]

Then the opposite could then (too) be stated;

Show me one cancer specialist that has quoted, 'Mr. Lance Armstrong did not derive his testicular cancer from the use of illegal drugs.'

It sounds just as stupid.

Which only goes to prove that 7 years of medical school does give some common sense and wisdom.

 

[SpeedWay]

Nor a clinic veteran.

Show me one cancer specialist that has quoted, 'Mr. Lance Armstrong derived his testicular cancer from the use of illegal drugs.'

Cancer specialists don't have the time for such nonsense. They're too busy prescribing steroid regimes and other "illegal drugs" for their chemo patients.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

There is a possibility, perhaps a good one, that the UCI was tossing out the results of most positives. Armstrong did compete at the Olympics, though. He was one of the favorites in '92 and '96. You would think he would have been tested.

I would not be surprised that the US agencies would have protected him, if not the UCI, keeping in mind the lesser penalties for steroid and TE positives back in the day when they were announced.

 

[MacRoadie]

Cancer specialists don't have the time for such nonsense. They're too busy prescribing steroid regimes and other "illegal drugs" for their chemo patients.

Right. Because steroids, are steroids, are steriods. They're all the same.


Just ask Lyle Alzado...

 

[andy1234]

There is a possibility, perhaps a good one, that the UCI was tossing out the results of most positives. Armstrong did compete at the Olympics, though. He was one of the favorites in '92 and '96. You would think he would have been tested.

I think that masking agents would be more likely (at least I hope)
The testing in Barcelona and Atlanta would not have been done by the UCI, so if he was tested then, its unlikely it would have been "overlooked"

 

[Anonymous]

Which only goes to prove that 7 years of medical school does give some common sense and wisdom.

You mean like wanting to know what performance enhancing drugs he had been taking?