Urine Trouble

[BroDeal]

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.

I find it unlikely that multiple organizations all buried Armstrong's positives, so I think he was masking his steroid use. In '95 and '96 his test results should have been off the chart. Lab technicians would have seen them and been shocked. His cancer probably should have been caught many years earlier than '96.

Plus, it is nice to think that there is a little karma. By masking his steroid use he was also masking the detection of his cancer. It is him profiting from it in the end that screws up the balance in the universe.

 

[BotanyBay]

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.

He most certainly would have been protected during those dark, dark years. No doubt about it.

 

[D-Queued]

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


Just ask Lyle Alzado...

That is a trick, right?

Isn't he like, dead, or something?

(RIP)

Dave.

 

[BotanyBay]

Good bye, clinic ! I don't need this stuff any more, as long as such people can place their disgusting hate without any consequences.

BAH !

I sent Mr Cobble a one-word PM that said "Alvederzane", and he answered it.

I knew he would.

 

[Cheat Or Be Cheated]

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.'

There is no evidence at all that the drugs Armstrong would have taken caused his cancer. Countless people take these drugs with no effect. Someone could speculate that there might be an effect that we don't know about, but if they assert that it caused the cancer they are wrong.

We do know, however, that testicular cancer is the most common form of cancer amongst young men.

 

[Cheat Or Be Cheated]

Great piece of crap again that someone can call disgusting.
You are clearly one of those JV is talking about, great Mr.benotti from the great internet.

btw, its not "all signs" - "clinic usual suspects signs" is correct.
We all now their signs and "proofs".

Be careful and have a look.
Could be possible that these are some last warning-signs to stop this.
I will report your ugly "sign" anyway. Ok, it won't make any sense, because the power is with you, but I'll just do it.

I get sick when I see you and thehog talking here.

Good bye, clinic ! I don't need this stuff any more, as long as such people can place their disgusting hate without any consequences.

BAH !

I know how you feel. All I did on this thread was highlight the legal line that Armstrong's people will use to defend against the urine test, and speculate that this news may not be as bad as everyone is saying. I said I will not believe rumors from people with an agenda. This was deemed so offensive that they removed all my posts and banned me for 24 hours.

But the users that were spreading rumors that this article will show the feds will get samples from other years, have been proven wrong, yet nothing has happened to them.

It seems you can spread any type of wild rumor and make hints of having inside information without backing it up, but if you speculate about Armstrong's defense lines then it's beyond the pale.

 

[BotanyBay]

There is no evidence at all that the drugs Armstrong would have taken caused his cancer. Countless people take these drugs with no effect. Someone could speculate that there might be an effect that we don't know about, but if they assert that it caused the cancer they are wrong.

We do know, however, that testicular cancer is the most common form of cancer amongst young men.

Countless people take these drugs under medical supervision (with appropriate doses), and usually only for short periods of time. But using them in an abusive manner opens up a LOT more possibilities. But addicts like HWMNBN rarely ever accept such common sense theories as to why they develop a cancerous tumor in the organ that just so happens to coincidentally produce one of the hormones being abused.

Your claim of "no effect" is asinine. Every drug has direct and side-effects.

 

[Cheat Or Be Cheated]

Countless people take these drugs under medical supervision (with appropriate doses), and usually only for short periods of time. But using them in an abusive manner opens up a LOT more possibilities. But addicts like HWMNBN rarely ever accept such common sense theories as to why they develop a cancerous tumor in the organ that just so happens to coincidentally produce one of the hormones being abused.

Your claim of "no effect" is asinine. Every drug has direct and side-effects.

Hundreds of thousands of people take steroids illegally and there have been no scientific direct link to cancer established. Even if there was, you could theorise about this being the cause but anyone stating we know Armstrong gave himself cancer is wrong. Plenty of young healthy men get testicular cancer.

 

[Anonymous]

.................

So you acknowledge Armstrong to be a serial steroid abuser. I'll call that progress.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

*** edited by mod ***

There are a lot of people who sit at home and watch YouTube / streaming cycling coverage of races and claim to know the power output of the main characters. That does not neccessary make them a specialist or a doctor.

Then again Flick's thinks he is on to something. Who knows. The info about the EPO in the Cancers urine is still the topic and how did it get there. Will the feds actually test it against his DNA and what is it that they are trying to gain from it? That is interesting but then again the nose around my forum neck is also interesting to some.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

It's probably a really good thing the real season starts tomorrow, I think we all gots a little cabin fever.

I guess so Hugh. I know that some folks are rubbed the wrong way by the "Urine Trouble". Maybe their lab did not receive any cancer research money from Armstrong and that makes them bitter. I know the folks around here (Texas) sure have no clue about the Urine Trouble. They think dude rides on the arc angels tubulars and that if he was to fart it would be much like a Yellow Rose in fragrance.

I can not wait for some cycling and get away from the Urine talk.

 

[Dallas_]

Perfect old urine samples

Gee good folks, from where I am standing, it seem to be getting personal here. Please bear with me as I attempt to move back on topic.

Did you know that clear urine means not dehydrated, at least that is what I am lead to believe. Was told if I

drink when thirsty, then too late, dehydration has already set in and your output on bike will drop accordingly.


The legal protocols that Novi has instigated with the AFLD could take longer than expected, meaning the samples may take months to arrive on US soil!

Will HWSNBN attempt to legally block the transfer?

cheers

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

I mucked out this thread too.

Stay on topic, stop insulting one another.

Further violations will automatically draw a minimum two-day suspension.

Susan

 

[SpeedWay]

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


Just ask Lyle Alzado...

Sadly, FYI, Lyle is no longer with us. Typical of a lot of the athletes that experimented with HGH in the pre-synthesized days when it was extracted from the pituitary glands of corpses(as in any old corpse the black market can get their hands on - prions or not). I'd tell you to find out what his doctors said about steroids causing his death but it won't help further your agenda. Neither would the fact that the athletes that so call "abuse" them the most, body builders, are far more healthier than the general population.
Too bad types like you don't have a sense of humor, I'd recommend Bell's "Bigger, Stronger, Faster" documentary. But sadly, you'd mostly likely miss the point.

 

[Race Radio]

At least one Doctor thought that Armstrong's cancer was caused by doping

"I remember when we were on a training ride in 2002, Lance told me that Ferrari had been paranoid that he had helped cause the cancer and became more conservative after that,"

 

[MacRoadie]

Sadly, FYI, Lyle is no longer with us.

Yes, that was my point...

As far as "my agenda" goes, the only agenda I have is to keep the hyperbole within the realm of reality ON BOTH SIDES. Find one single post where I have STATED that steroids cause cancer.

I, quite fankly, don't care what caused Armstrong's cancer, and you certainly will NEVER find me in the "he deserved it, he caused his own cancer" chorus. To my mind that is a terribly evil mindset to take. I don't think ANYONE deserves cancer. Ever. It is an insidious disease. Nor would I find it "ironic" or "karma" if it were found out that the PED's did, in fact, cause or exacerbate the cancer. As far as the doping goes, I fall squarely in the camp of Armstrong just doing what plenty of others were doing. If the PEDs caused it, then it could easily have been someone else (like Ernie or some of the others). This isn't a discussion on the legality or morality of doping to cheat. My thoughts on that can be found elsewhere.

My concern here in this debate is that there will be some who will, in their defence of Armstrong, adopt the polar opposite argument that PEDs could NEVER cause or exacerbate cancer, and in doing so, will in my mind minimize what I feel is yet another strong (if there weren't enough already) reason for athletes both young and old to abstain from PED use. For me, this particular aspect of PED use isn't one of cheating in sport, but one of life safety and prevention.

This shouldn't be about another "a-ha!" moment for the "haters" to circumstantially tie drug use to cancer, it should be an opportunity to add to the long list of reasons why taking PEDs can be detrimental to your long-term health. Conversely, the "Armstrong defenders" shouldn't be so quick to dismiss at least the POTENTIAL for PED use to affect the body in ways not yet known, simply to thwart a perceived attack on Armstrong. Especially if those steroids, HGH, EPO, etc. are used in ways for which they were not intended, in doses not recommended, or for periods of time longer than prescribed for "normal" medical purposes.

My problem with Armstrong sits squarely in his treatment of others, his abuse of people who didn't toe the party line, the lengths he was willing to go to win (beyond what others could or would), and the fiasco that I feel has become of his charity and the blurred lines between what is good for Lance and what is good for the fight against cancer.

 

[ultimobici]

Having read through this thread I am amazed & amused by the logic many of the Lance supporters follow.

The 99 samples will not lead to charges in their own right, nor will any one single piece of evidence. What the Feds are doing is building a wall, a dirty great big wall, all the way around Armstrong. Each piece of evidence is a brick and one by one they are piling up.

Once they've finished he either climbs over it (no conviction or no charges), opens a door in it (plea-bargained deal) or stays put (convicted).

As for the Feds having no interest in European offences, it's a little naive to think that the US & European authorities aren't working together all the time on drug cases. Here in the UK there is a programme on TV that looks at the Royal Navy's anti-drug patrols in the Caribbean. The RN's involvement stops when there is a need for intervention which is handled by the US authorities who are attached to HMS Manchester.

Armstrong has many confidants & helpers but his resources are minuscule compared to the Federal Investigation. Moreover there raison d'etre is to investigate & catch criminals. He may appear to be unassailable but after months of gathering evidence & witness statements there will be something that he trips up on or someone who folds under the pressure. Then he will be exposed for what he truly is, either innocent or the biggest fraud in sporting history. Time will tell.....

 

[mewmewmew13]

Yes, that was my point...

As far as "my agenda" goes, the only agenda I have is to keep the hyperbole within the realm of reality ON BOTH SIDES. Find one single post where I have STATED that steroids cause cancer.

I, quite fankly, don't care what caused Armstrong's cancer, and you certainly will NEVER find me in the "he deserved it, he caused his own cancer" chorus. To my mind that is a terribly evil mindset to take. I don't think ANYONE deserves cancer. Ever. It is an insidious disease. Nor would I find it "ironic" or "karma" if it were found out that the PED's did, in fact, cause or exacerbate the cancer. As far as the doping goes, I fall squarely in the camp of Armstrong just doing what plenty of others were doing. If the PEDs caused it, then it could easily have been someone else (like Ernie or some of the others). This isn't a discussion on the legality or morality of doping to cheat. My thoughts on that can be found elsewhere.

My concern here in this debate is that there will be some who will, in their defence of Armstrong, adopt the polar opposite argument that PEDs could NEVER cause or exacerbate cancer, and in doing so, will in my mind minimize what I feel is yet another strong (if there weren't enough already) reason for athletes both young and old to abstain from PED use. For me, this particular aspect of PED use isn't one of cheating in sport, but one of life safety and prevention.

This shouldn't be about another "a-ha!" moment for the "haters" to circumstantially tie drug use to cancer, it should be an opportunity to add to the long list of reasons why taking PEDs can be detrimental to your long-term health. Conversely, the "Armstrong defenders" shouldn't be so quick to dismiss at least the POTENTIAL for PED use to affect the body in ways not yet known, simply to thwart a perceived attack on Armstrong. Especially if those steroids, HGH, EPO, etc. are used in ways for which they were not intended, in doses not recommended, or for periods of time longer than prescribed for "normal" medical purposes.

My problem with Armstrong sits squarely in his treatment of others, his abuse of people who didn't toe the party line, the lengths he was willing to go to win (beyond what others could or would), and the fiasco that I feel has become of his charity and the blurred lines between what is good for Lance and what is good for the fight against cancer.

Exactly! The key word here for me is 'abuse', not relating to PED use but of people.

 

[Iker_Baqueiro]

Just to let you guys know of the following:
It seems Armstrong et al are doing a cleansing on the Internet. Now, when you type, in Google for example, "lance armstrong doping", the only top links that appear are pro- armstrong. They are trying to hide the facts about armstrong's doping and the urine trouble.

What do you think ?

 

[Race Radio]

Just to let you guys know of the following:
It seems Armstrong et al are doing a cleansing on the Internet. Now, when you type, in Google for example, "lance armstrong doping", the only top links that appear are pro- armstrong. They are trying to hide the facts about armstrong's doping and the urine trouble.

What do you think ?

Rather distrubing that the first search result is

Here's The Problem With The Lance Armstrong Doping Investigation: There's No Proof!

really? 20 years of doping stories and this is the first thing Google pulls up?

 

[JRTinMA]

Just to let you guys know of the following:
It seems Armstrong et al are doing a cleansing on the Internet. Now, when you type, in Google for example, "lance armstrong doping", the only top links that appear are pro- armstrong. They are trying to hide the facts about armstrong's doping and the urine trouble.

What do you think ?

Chris Rock threw the worst opening pitch in the history of baseball and it used to be available all over the web and now it has vanished, he still threw the worst pitch and LA still doped. So he has spent a fortune to clean up the internet of his doping rumors, none of this matters. The throngs of supporters still don't care if he did or didn't and the ones who know still know even without google. FWIW I think every result after the first one was about his doping, couldn't bother to click on them but I saw SI referenced a lot in the forwards.

Somebody will shortly post for you how this guy knows this guy who knows this guy at google and LA had it cleaned up for a whole bunch of DM stock and yellow bracelets. Its totally true.

 

[happychappy]

I googled "doping" and all I got was this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zzq5hw5KSXU

 

[Berzin]

The most disturbing aspect of all this isn't Armstrong's drug use before he was diagnosed with testicular cancer.

It's the story in the SI article that states while he was sick he was researching PED's to continue doping after he got well.

This is supposedly how he got a hold of his HemAssist stash.

 

[Benotti69]

Just to let you guys know of the following:
It seems Armstrong et al are doing a cleansing on the Internet. Now, when you type, in Google for example, "lance armstrong doping", the only top links that appear are pro- armstrong. They are trying to hide the facts about armstrong's doping and the urine trouble.

What do you think ?

Rather distrubing that the first search result is

Here's The Problem With The Lance Armstrong Doping Investigation: There's No Proof!

really? 20 years of doping stories and this is the first thing Google pulls up?

i find this latest episode in the whole sorry sack of dirt that slimes after Armstrong really disturbing on so many levels, that he is determined to try and bury the dirt and no one will catch him, that he can affect the biggest search engine in the world over what is really important to sporting fairness and that those who wish to be involved with this mans charity cannot research him before they make a donation of their hard earned and it is this last aspect that really is the lowest of the low. He is fast becoming the guy who believes that even the poor should give him their money because he is Lance the 'Cancer guy'.

The guy obviously cant read otherwise he would realize that they always get caught, even Nixon, Napoleon, Berlusconi and little ol Austin Texan Gunderson.

I wonder has he thought of buying CN, just to control the clinic, yet

 

[ultimobici]

i find this latest episode in the whole sorry sack of dirt that slimes after Armstrong really disturbing on so many levels, that he is determined to try and bury the dirt and no one will catch him, that he can affect the biggest search engine in the world over what is really important to sporting fairness and that those who wish to be involved with this mans charity cannot research him before they make a donation of their hard earned and it is this last aspect that really is the lowest of the low. He is fast becoming the guy who believes that even the poor should give him their money because he is Lance the 'Cancer guy'.

The guy obviously cant read otherwise he would realize that they always get caught, even Nixon, Napoleon, Berlusconi and little ol Austin Texan Gunderson.

I wonder has he thought of buying CN, just to control the clinic, yet

I wouldn't put it past him!