Lance Armstrong gets life ban,loses 7 TDF,confesses he doped

dave_1

So, what would his palmares really look like without everyone doping? He entered 1996 as UCI world number 1 cyclist on points. That has not been erased. He was World Champion at 21..not erased either. What is a fair appraisal? He was really a lowly domestique without D?

ddraver

Maybe he could have been a decent Boonen/Gilbert type rider - but being US and after money, I think the lure of the Tour would have always been too strong to properly focus on them.

Perhaps a Sean Kelly/Stephen Roche type rider - could pull of a win in most races, but never specialised enough to dominate one type for a long time!

dave_1

ddraver wrote:

Maybe he could have been a decent Boonen/Gilbert type rider - but being US and after money, I think the lure of the Tour would have always been too strong to properly focus on them.

Perhaps a Sean Kelly/Stephen Roche type rider - could pull of a win in most races, but never specialised enough to dominate one type for a long time!

He would have stood on a GC podium at some point, maybe a Vuelta win or 2 or more classics, Lombardy...for me he is better than Hampsten but not a TDF winner either..but poss podium

I see he has been voted Texan of the year http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/edito ... strong.ece

Nick Fitt

Dave_1 wrote:

So, what would his palmares really look like without everyone doping? He entered 1996 as UCI world number 1 cyclist on points. That has not been erased. He was World Champion at 21..not erased either. What is a fair appraisal? He was really a lowly domestique without D?

If you read LA Confidentiel, he was on Cortisone right from the 7-Eleven days. I don't believe he has ever raced clean. Its probable Cortisone gave him cancer.

Nick Fitt

Beatmaker wrote:

Sally Jenkins on why she can't be angry at Lance Armstrong. Ummm, perhaps because he made ou a shoot load of cash?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/othersports/why-im-not-angry-at-lance-armstrong/2012/12/15/5802bcce-460e-11e2-8061-253bccfc7532_story_1.html?tid=ts_carousel

There are some really interesting comments after her blog. I like this one though;

I am not angry with Lance. You get many crooks in this life and he is just one of them.

I am also not angry with Sally Jenkins for the part that she played in knowingly or unknowingly perpetuating the LA Fraud. I am not angry with Sally Jenkins for feeling moved to write her ill-conceived apology for Lance. I am not angry with Sally Jenkins for makind the statement "that what athletes put in their bodies should be a matter of personal conscience, not police actions ".; for not only condoning drugging, but expressly encouraging others to do it; for encouraging the breaking of sporting rules and effectively advocating that anarchy be unleashed upon the sporting world. I say again, I'm not angry with Sally Jenkins .

Howedver, I am really angry with the Washington Post for providing Sally Jenkins with a platform to articulate such reactionary views.

Have the Post and Sally Jenkins already agreed serialisation terms for her next Lance book?

Richmond Racer

have to say that I think WP deserves a rinsing for this

bigdawg

rob churchill wrote:

Wasn't Bruyneel supposed to be up before the CAS beak this month? I've been looking forward to that. Have I missed something?

No tA Doctor wrote:

Truthfulness is one of the standards we hold journalists accountable on.

Says who? Journalists, that's who. But the lying scumbag hacks are lying about that too.

thats a good point I thought that was all suppose to happen in November / early december?!?!

sherer

rumours say LA was always on drugs even in the motorola days with Yates. I always viewed him as a one day rider, it wasn't until EPO that he was able to change into a stage racer and get over the mountains properly

Richmond Racer

bigdawg wrote:

rob churchill wrote:

Wasn't Bruyneel supposed to be up before the CAS beak this month? I've been looking forward to that. Have I missed something?

No tA Doctor wrote:

Truthfulness is one of the standards we hold journalists accountable on.

Says who? Journalists, that's who. But the lying scumbag hacks are lying about that too.

thats a good point I thought that was all suppose to happen in November / early december?!?!

USADA had said that they were expecting the hearing to be held before the year end, but recently said that there was still no news of a date.

bompington

Nick Fitt wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

So, what would his palmares really look like without everyone doping? He entered 1996 as UCI world number 1 cyclist on points. That has not been erased. He was World Champion at 21..not erased either. What is a fair appraisal? He was really a lowly domestique without D?

If you read LA Confidentiel, he was on Cortisone right from the 7-Eleven days. I don't believe he has ever raced clean. Its probable Cortisone gave him cancer.

Err, there is some evidence that cortisone use may cause a slightly higher incidence of cancer. Other steroids have more significant risks, but overall, that's a long way from "it's probable Cortisone gave him cancer".

It always bugs me a bit that people will seize on anything, plausible or not, in their (quite legitimate) desire to find another stick to bit Armstrong with.

One bit of interesting evidence from pre-cancer days had passed me by until just recently, maybe the rest of you didn't miss it but I don't recall seeing it here - that elevated hormone levels caused by Armstrong's cancer should have shown up on drug tests prior to the cancer being officially diagnosed. Yet more evidence that he had something more sophisticated than just a bit of pill-popping going on from quite a long time back...

Nick Fitt

bompington wrote:

Nick Fitt wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

So, what would his palmares really look like without everyone doping? He entered 1996 as UCI world number 1 cyclist on points. That has not been erased. He was World Champion at 21..not erased either. What is a fair appraisal? He was really a lowly domestique without D?

If you read LA Confidentiel, he was on Cortisone right from the 7-Eleven days. I don't believe he has ever raced clean. Its probable Cortisone gave him cancer.

Err, there is some evidence that cortisone use may cause a slightly higher incidence of cancer. Other steroids have more significant risks, but overall, that's a long way from "it's probable Cortisone gave him cancer".

It always bugs me a bit that people will seize on anything, plausible or not, in their (quite legitimate) desire to find another stick to bit Armstrong with.

One bit of interesting evidence from pre-cancer days had passed me by until just recently, maybe the rest of you didn't miss it but I don't recall seeing it here - that elevated hormone levels caused by Armstrong's cancer should have shown up on drug tests prior to the cancer being officially diagnosed. Yet more evidence that he had something more sophisticated than just a bit of pill-popping going on from quite a long time back...

In reference to your point in bold, there was another rider at 7-Eleven whose name escapes me that was taking Cortisone and over time developed an 'illness'. This bug prevented him from training, caused him to always suffer from fatigue and many other symptoms. He went through loads of tests and ultimately they thought he had cancer as the symptoms were similar, fortunately they discovered what it was and he was treated. According to LA Confidentiel, this 'bug' caused by Cortisone and HGH will, 90% of the time go onto cancer. I cant recall the names and absolute detail, read it for yourself, its all there. Given the legal noise LA Confidentiel created at the time, I would say the facts stated are plausible, to use your term.

Its not hard to find sticks to bit (hit?) Armstrong with.

Its apparently true too, Armstrongs cancer should have been spotted earlier. Even when he complained (reportedly) of shooting pains going along his spine, no-one tumbled it. Whatever he was using to mask or hide drugs literally almost killed him. Again, read the book.

dennisn

Nick Fitt wrote:

bompington wrote:

Nick Fitt wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

So, what would his palmares really look like without everyone doping? He entered 1996 as UCI world number 1 cyclist on points. That has not been erased. He was World Champion at 21..not erased either. What is a fair appraisal? He was really a lowly domestique without D?

If you read LA Confidentiel, he was on Cortisone right from the 7-Eleven days. I don't believe he has ever raced clean. Its probable Cortisone gave him cancer.

Err, there is some evidence that cortisone use may cause a slightly higher incidence of cancer. Other steroids have more significant risks, but overall, that's a long way from "it's probable Cortisone gave him cancer".

It always bugs me a bit that people will seize on anything, plausible or not, in their (quite legitimate) desire to find another stick to bit Armstrong with.

One bit of interesting evidence from pre-cancer days had passed me by until just recently, maybe the rest of you didn't miss it but I don't recall seeing it here - that elevated hormone levels caused by Armstrong's cancer should have shown up on drug tests prior to the cancer being officially diagnosed. Yet more evidence that he had something more sophisticated than just a bit of pill-popping going on from quite a long time back...

In reference to your point in bold, there was another rider at 7-Eleven whose name escapes me that was taking Cortisone and over time developed an 'illness'. This bug prevented him from training, caused him to always suffer from fatigue and many other symptoms. He went through loads of tests and ultimately they thought he had cancer as the symptoms were similar, fortunately they discovered what it was and he was treated. According to LA Confidentiel, this 'bug' caused by Cortisone and HGH will, 90% of the time go onto cancer. I cant recall the names and absolute detail, read it for yourself, its all there. Given the legal noise LA Confidentiel created at the time, I would say the facts stated are plausible, to use your term.

Its not hard to find sticks to bit (hit?) Armstrong with.

Its apparently true too, Armstrongs cancer should have been spotted earlier. Even when he complained (reportedly) of shooting pains going along his spine, no-one tumbled it. Whatever he was using to mask or hide drugs literally almost killed him. Again, read the book.

I will admit to not having read LA Confidential. Just not my type of reading material. However, if I were looking for the "truth" in all this I sure as h*ll wouldn't pick a book with a name like that. Sounds like some sort of scandal sheet newspaper title.

Richmond Racer

dennis, its far from a Kitty Kelly type of scandal rag of a book.

it was written by David Walsh and Pierre Ballester and published in France in the mid-00s (Armstrong's lawyers ensured it couldnt be published anywhere else). Considering how few people would go on record at that time apart for the Andreus, O'Reilly etc, its a remarkable piece of investigative journalism even though the authors had access to maybe 10% of the detail that USADA were able to draw upon thanks to a lot more people being willing to talk.

Walsh and Ballester wrote the book several years before Landis started talking. In fact, before Landis even tested positive.

dennisn

Richmond Racer wrote:

dennis, its far from a Kitty Kelly type of scandal rag of a book.

it was written by David Walsh and Pierre Ballester and published in France in the mid-00s (Armstrong's lawyers ensured it couldnt be published anywhere else). Considering how few people would go on record at that time apart for the Andreus, O'Reilly etc, its a remarkable piece of investigative journalism even though the authors had access to maybe 10% of the detail that USADA were able to draw upon thanks to a lot more people being willing to talk.

Walsh and Ballester wrote the book several years before Landis started talking. In fact, before Landis even tested positive.

I wasn't making fun of the book or what's in it. Just the title. It sounded a bit bizarre to me. I have friends who are always trying to loan me the latest cycling books. I try to plead non interest to them but most insist that I take the book because I'll enjoy it. So I take it and after a few pages put it down. Just not my area of interest when it come to reading.

deejay

Dave_1 wrote:

So, what would his palmares really look like without everyone doping? He entered 1996 as UCI world number 1 cyclist on points. That has not been erased. He was World Champion at 21..not erased either. What is a fair appraisal? He was really a lowly domestique without D?

Where the hell did you get that. :?: :shock:
Where would he get the points. San Sebastian and a stage in TDF & Paris-Nice.
He must have been busy in the States to get enough points
He was not an all rounder and the 1995 &1996 World Number 1 was Laurent Jalabert, a real All Rounder.
He was never a "Domestic" as he was brought to Europe to produce results and failed miserably.
He was just another rider in the peloton with a big head and a big mouth.
I heard him bemoan the fact that nobody in Belgium recognised him.
Just one of the many in the peloton that would go out in a break during a Transitional stage.

Then he comes back to repeat the Bjarne Riis tricks of being a Freak which we recognised as Fraud.
You keep bringing rubbish to the Forum and we will keep knocking you down, so yes it's time you accept the "Facts"

Matchstick Man

Google Greg Strock, Eric Kaiter, David Francis and Gerrik Latra and their lawsuit against Rene Wenzel.
Essentially they were all on the national squad in the US in 1990/1992 and were the same generation as Hincapie, Armstrong, Vaughters and Julich.
There was a systematic programme of doping the young teenagers (17/18) with cortisone overseen by Carmichael and Stock and Kaiter also went on to develop conditions in their mid 20's which were as a result of suppressed immune systems. Strock had the human parvovirus B19 and Kaiter developed Crohn's disease.

Murr X

Nick Fitt wrote:

bompington wrote:

Nick Fitt wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

So, what would his palmares really look like without everyone doping? He entered 1996 as UCI world number 1 cyclist on points. That has not been erased. He was World Champion at 21..not erased either. What is a fair appraisal? He was really a lowly domestique without D?

If you read LA Confidentiel, he was on Cortisone right from the 7-Eleven days. I don't believe he has ever raced clean. Its probable Cortisone gave him cancer.

Err, there is some evidence that cortisone use may cause a slightly higher incidence of cancer. Other steroids have more significant risks, but overall, that's a long way from "it's probable Cortisone gave him cancer".

It always bugs me a bit that people will seize on anything, plausible or not, in their (quite legitimate) desire to find another stick to bit Armstrong with.

One bit of interesting evidence from pre-cancer days had passed me by until just recently, maybe the rest of you didn't miss it but I don't recall seeing it here - that elevated hormone levels caused by Armstrong's cancer should have shown up on drug tests prior to the cancer being officially diagnosed. Yet more evidence that he had something more sophisticated than just a bit of pill-popping going on from quite a long time back...

In reference to your point in bold, there was another rider at 7-Eleven whose name escapes me that was taking Cortisone and over time developed an 'illness'. This bug prevented him from training, caused him to always suffer from fatigue and many other symptoms. He went through loads of tests and ultimately they thought he had cancer as the symptoms were similar, fortunately they discovered what it was and he was treated. According to LA Confidentiel, this 'bug' caused by Cortisone and HGH will, 90% of the time go onto cancer. I cant recall the names and absolute detail, read it for yourself, its all there. Given the legal noise LA Confidentiel created at the time, I would say the facts stated are plausible, to use your term.

Its not hard to find sticks to bit (hit?) Armstrong with.

Its apparently true too, Armstrongs cancer should have been spotted earlier. Even when he complained (reportedly) of shooting pains going along his spine, no-one tumbled it. Whatever he was using to mask or hide drugs literally almost killed him. Again, read the book.

I think that what Wenzel, Carmichael and co was alleged to have done was absolutely disgraceful and doping an unwilling participant is an exceptionally low measure to go to. I am a very forgiving person but this is highly unforgivable behavior and I was disgusted when I first heard of this years ago.


I must state that I never read LA Confidential but know a thing or two about physiology and have never heard of this "bug". I do not wish to come across as promoting or supporting doping but I strongly suspect it is complete BS - the type of BS which gets made up from thin air by those looking for reasons to support their (often misguided) views.

Why is this "bug" caused by HGH and cortisone? It is very unlikely that two completely different hormones will cause the same condition, and I have never ever seen anything in literature to support anything similar to this "bug" and if it was there I would likely have known about it long before now. Where is the proof that 90% of the time this "bug" will go on to cause cancer? Who knows and can accurately explain and show that this will happen? Why do the tens of millions of cortisone users taking likely far more extreme dosages experience unwanted side effects but not this "bug"? Why? Well because it probably only exists in the imagination of anti-doping extremists many of whom are poor at telling fact from fiction. It is a trait also seen in political and religious orientation and has basically got to do with being detached from reality. Conditions and side effects that do not exist in the real world (lengthening "HGH" jawline being a classic example) are common and sure certain in the anti-doping extremists world.

I can absolutely assure you that cortisone had little to nothing to do with Armstrong's cancer - and closer to nothing that to little, genetic predisposition was the reason for it and testicular cancer is not uncommon in men of his age. There are very many athletes using cortisone in the same way that Lance did and they will (going by the studies) not have any higher rates of cancer than those not using it. Sadly with cortisone they will to some extent face the classic catabolic effects of the hormone although not nearly to the extent which the many suffers of auto-immune diseases will face as frequency and dosage is generally far greater in those patients. Cortisone has a great deal of side effects bit it does not accelerate cancer much if at all, probably not at all at least generally.

Also, cycling and endurance sports in general are lightweights when it comes to doping. If you are involved in bodybuilding or power lifting for example, the dosages and range of hormones used are incomparably higher than in cycling and anything done by Lance, yet the risks of death are how can I put it... greatly exaggerated or very often fabricated and never existed. Not for one second though am I saying that all forms of doping are always safe either as I am not.

The point I am making (and this is in no way aimed at you "Nick Fitt" so please don't take it that way) is that there is an increasingly strong anti-doping movement in cycling that is not seeing reality and is in simple terms making things up about doping essentially without knowing anything whatsoever about the topic. Health is a complex topic to get ones head around, far to big a topic for most to devote the time and effort to try to understand and so most fail at this, yet it does not stop many or even most from forming an opinion which they find it very hard to see past.

Murr X

dave_1

deejay wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

So, what would his palmares really look like without everyone doping? He entered 1996 as UCI world number 1 cyclist on points. That has not been erased. He was World Champion at 21..not erased either. What is a fair appraisal? He was really a lowly domestique without D?

Where the hell did you get that. :?: :shock:
Where would he get the points. San Sebastian and a stage in TDF & Paris-Nice.
He must have been busy in the States to get enough points
He was not an all rounder and the 1995 &1996 World Number 1 was Laurent Jalabert, a real All Rounder.
He was never a "Domestic" as he was brought to Europe to produce results and failed miserably.
He was just another rider in the peloton with a big head and a big mouth.
I heard him bemoan the fact that nobody in Belgium recognised him.
Just one of the many in the peloton that would go out in a break during a Transitional stage.

Then he comes back to repeat the Bjarne Riis tricks of being a Freak which we recognised as Fraud.
You keep bringing rubbish to the Forum and we will keep knocking you down, so yes it's time you accept the "Facts"

Jalabert at EPONCE a true all rounder...lance drugged scum. Double think of Deejay

You sound like a nice person to meet.
And sorry to go off topic, but what's your purpose or intent in reminding us ": W, Kent-No Blue in ENGLAND Flag" ?

Nick Fitt

Murr X wrote:

Nick Fitt wrote:

bompington wrote:

Nick Fitt wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

So, what would his palmares really look like without everyone doping? He entered 1996 as UCI world number 1 cyclist on points. That has not been erased. He was World Champion at 21..not erased either. What is a fair appraisal? He was really a lowly domestique without D?

If you read LA Confidentiel, he was on Cortisone right from the 7-Eleven days. I don't believe he has ever raced clean. Its probable Cortisone gave him cancer.

Err, there is some evidence that cortisone use may cause a slightly higher incidence of cancer. Other steroids have more significant risks, but overall, that's a long way from "it's probable Cortisone gave him cancer".

It always bugs me a bit that people will seize on anything, plausible or not, in their (quite legitimate) desire to find another stick to bit Armstrong with.

One bit of interesting evidence from pre-cancer days had passed me by until just recently, maybe the rest of you didn't miss it but I don't recall seeing it here - that elevated hormone levels caused by Armstrong's cancer should have shown up on drug tests prior to the cancer being officially diagnosed. Yet more evidence that he had something more sophisticated than just a bit of pill-popping going on from quite a long time back...

In reference to your point in bold, there was another rider at 7-Eleven whose name escapes me that was taking Cortisone and over time developed an 'illness'. This bug prevented him from training, caused him to always suffer from fatigue and many other symptoms. He went through loads of tests and ultimately they thought he had cancer as the symptoms were similar, fortunately they discovered what it was and he was treated. According to LA Confidentiel, this 'bug' caused by Cortisone and HGH will, 90% of the time go onto cancer. I cant recall the names and absolute detail, read it for yourself, its all there. Given the legal noise LA Confidentiel created at the time, I would say the facts stated are plausible, to use your term.

Its not hard to find sticks to bit (hit?) Armstrong with.

Its apparently true too, Armstrongs cancer should have been spotted earlier. Even when he complained (reportedly) of shooting pains going along his spine, no-one tumbled it. Whatever he was using to mask or hide drugs literally almost killed him. Again, read the book.

I think that what Wenzel, Carmichael and co was alleged to have done was absolutely disgraceful and doping an unwilling participant is an exceptionally low measure to go to. I am a very forgiving person but this is highly unforgivable behavior and I was disgusted when I first heard of this years ago.


I must state that I never read LA Confidential but know a thing or two about physiology and have never heard of this "bug". I do not wish to come across as promoting or supporting doping but I strongly suspect it is complete BS - the type of BS which gets made up from thin air by those looking for reasons to support their (often misguided) views.

Why is this "bug" caused by HGH and cortisone? It is very unlikely that two completely different hormones will cause the same condition, and I have never ever seen anything in literature to support anything similar to this "bug" and if it was there I would likely have known about it long before now. Where is the proof that 90% of the time this "bug" will go on to cause cancer? Who knows and can accurately explain and show that this will happen? Why do the tens of millions of cortisone users taking likely far more extreme dosages experience unwanted side effects but not this "bug"? Why? Well because it probably only exists in the imagination of anti-doping extremists many of whom are poor at telling fact from fiction. It is a trait also seen in political and religious orientation and has basically got to do with being detached from reality. Conditions and side effects that do not exist in the real world (lengthening "HGH" jawline being a classic example) are common and sure certain in the anti-doping extremists world.

I can absolutely assure you that cortisone had little to nothing to do with Armstrong's cancer - and closer to nothing that to little, genetic predisposition was the reason for it and testicular cancer is not uncommon in men of his age. There are very many athletes using cortisone in the same way that Lance did and they will (going by the studies) not have any higher rates of cancer than those not using it. Sadly with cortisone they will to some extent face the classic catabolic effects of the hormone although not nearly to the extent which the many suffers of auto-immune diseases will face as frequency and dosage is generally far greater in those patients. Cortisone has a great deal of side effects bit it does not accelerate cancer much if at all, probably not at all at least generally.

Also, cycling and endurance sports in general are lightweights when it comes to doping. If you are involved in bodybuilding or power lifting for example, the dosages and range of hormones used are incomparably higher than in cycling and anything done by Lance, yet the risks of death are how can I put it... greatly exaggerated or very often fabricated and never existed. Not for one second though am I saying that all forms of doping are always safe either as I am not.

The point I am making (and this is in no way aimed at you "Nick Fitt" so please don't take it that way) is that there is an increasingly strong anti-doping movement in cycling that is not seeing reality and is in simple terms making things up about doping essentially without knowing anything whatsoever about the topic. Health is a complex topic to get ones head around, far to big a topic for most to devote the time and effort to try to understand and so most fail at this, yet it does not stop many or even most from forming an opinion which they find it very hard to see past.

Murr X

Ahh, there you see you quoted me so you are aiming your comments at me. Long reply, read the damn book. Matchstick mans quote of parvovirus and crohns disease rings a bell. Look it up, LA Confidentiel is a strong read and was not wrong either, now the truth is out. Its laughable that people joke about its title or anything else about the damn book, IT WAS RIGHT ALL ALONG!

I've been into cycling for long enough to be a realist when it comes to doping, I am not a modern anti doping movement. But realistic about the abuse of drugs.

No doubt I am not as educated as you, read for yourself, page 18, maybe I misread it. I thought correlation meant some kind of mutual relationship.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/24714691/L-A- ... ranslation

dave_1

sherer wrote:

rumours say LA was always on drugs even in the motorola days with Yates. I always viewed him as a one day rider, it wasn't until EPO that he was able to change into a stage racer and get over the mountains properly

Hincapie suggests Lance A was not on EPO in 1994 but wanted to. Evem Kimmage concedes he was fast. Anyway, Sean Yates does not deserve sullied. It shows this forum in a very poor light to drag him through the mud for winning nothing, making little money, making others famous.

ddraver

Nick Fitt wrote:

No doubt I am not as educated as you, read for yourself, page 18, maybe I misread it. I thought correlation meant some kind of mutual relationship.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/24714691/L-A- ... ranslation

*puts Skeptic hat on*

No, it absolutely does not! It means that as one changes the other does too. It DOES NOT mean that one causes the other!

inkyfingers

I finished The Secret Race last night, it really is a very good book.

RichN95.

The thing with the 'his doping caused the cancer' argument is where are the other cyclists with cancer? Lots of them were taking plenty of cortisone and hgh yet there are maybe only one or two other sufferers.
By contrast three people I have played hockey with have had testicular cancer - it killed one them. Do we therefore conclude that astroturf is carcinogenic?

Murr X

Nick Fitt wrote:

Ahh, there you see you quoted me so you are aiming your comments at me. Long reply, read the damn book. Matchstick mans quote of parvovirus and crohns disease rings a bell. Look it up, LA Confidentiel is a strong read and was not wrong either, now the truth is out. Its laughable that people joke about its title or anything else about the damn book, IT WAS RIGHT ALL ALONG!

I've been into cycling for long enough to be a realist when it comes to doping, I am not a modern anti doping movement. But realistic about the abuse of drugs.

No doubt I am not as educated as you, read for yourself, page 18, maybe I misread it. I thought correlation meant some kind of mutual relationship.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/24714691/L-A- ... ranslation

Thank you for the link Nick,

From what I just read on page 18 of the book it states that "the human pavovirus is correlated 90% of the time to cancer of the testicles". This is very different to what you had stated which was that HGH and cortisone cause the "bug" which I can only assume is the human pavovirus. There is on fact no connection to these hormones to the virus or even a connection to doping in general, the only possible connection to doping and the virus is the sharing of needles (which I highly doubt happened) or homologous blood transfusions.

You can see how things which you have said (and you are not alonein doing so) like "Its probable Cortisone gave him cancer". Or "this 'bug' caused by Cortisone and HGH will, 90% of the time go onto cancer" can get born out of thin air and then wrongly stated with confidence and some level of authority. This kind of thing happens on cyclingnews forums and elsewhere a lot.

For the record I don't think for a minute that the allegations against Armstrong, Carmichael and co are fabricated. Rather it is the reported side effects of the doping which I am seriously doubting. Because much of what is often stated here or in connection to doping elsewhere is simply not true.

Murr X

iainf72

RichN95 wrote:

The thing with the 'his doping caused the cancer' argument is where are the other cyclists with cancer? Lots of them were taking plenty of cortisone and hgh yet there are maybe only one or two other sufferers.
By contrast three people I have played hockey with have had testicular cancer - it killed one them. Do we therefore conclude that astroturf is carcinogenic?

No.

Playing hockey rather than rugby means you generate a lot more of the female hormones, and this is what causes the cancer. If you played a mans sport, you'd not have any problems.

:P

inkyfingers

He was also at the age where men are most likely to get testicular cancer.

Linking his illness with doping will never be anything other than conjecture. It's far, far more likely that like many men, he was just unlucky. My mother got cancer in her mid 30s, she was a professional dancer (no, not the exotic kind!) and was extremely fit and healthy, sometimes it just happens.

bigdawg

I just typed all this out so if it double posts apologies.

I had testicular cancer around 96/97, myself and every person I was treated with could pinpoint the origin of hte cancer to an impact of the testicle which caused it to 'burst' and then later develop into a tumour. Its not the cause of all TC but it happens - the point being there was tour in the UK prior to 97 and I remember as a car forced itself onto the course (rolling roadblock) and caused a crash - the camera flicked bakc and there was LA doubled over in pain haolding himself between the legs, obviously having suffered a major impact there. Personally thats what I think was the cause of his TC, I don't believe it was caused by cortisone or other drugs but I do agree his drug use (masking) hid the cancer from his examiners- the amount of tests he should have undertaken should have shown his cancer in a second.

deejay

Dave_1 wrote:

He entered 1996 as UCI world number 1 cyclist on points.That has not been erased. He was really a lowly domestique without D?

deejay wrote:

Where the hell did you get that. :?: :shock:
Where would he get the points. San Sebastian and a stage in TDF & Paris-Nice.
He must have been busy in the States to get enough points
He was not an all rounder and the 1995 &1996 World Number 1 was Laurent Jalabert, a real All Rounder.
He was never a "Domestic" as he was brought to Europe to produce results and failed miserably.
He was just another rider in the peloton with a big head and a big mouth.
I heard him bemoan the fact that nobody in Belgium recognised him.
Just one of the many in the peloton that would go out in a break during a Transitional stage.

Then he comes back to repeat the Bjarne Riis tricks of being a Freak which we recognised as Fraud.
You keep bringing rubbish to the Forum and we will keep knocking you down, so yes it's time you accept the "Facts"

Dave_1 wrote:

Jalabert at EPONCE a true all rounder...lance drugged scum. Double think of Deejay

You sound like a nice person to meet.
And sorry to go off topic, but what's your purpose or intent in reminding us ": W, Kent-No Blue in ENGLAND Flag" ?

Is that an answer, shame on you.
You come off your Cloud Cuckoo Land and mouth off some outlandish opinions "without" any facts and start a new topic to cover your stupidity.

I am not a Fanboy of Ja Ja and until the record books say different I will accept he was a good All rounder.
I could never accept the Filth being served up during the first decade of the 21st century and I am happy to see it erased.
Now show me where Jalabert (and others) have been erased and I might (just might) respect your opinions.

Fact is there is No Blue in an ENGLAND Flag. Quite simple really, I am an "Anglo-Saxon Englishman"
While on this other topic of yours, I have an opinion that I think should be a Fact.
The Union Flag is wrong and I see the Joke going on in Ulster at the moment.
The Union Flag should be (and since 1922) the same as that Union Flag being flown between 1606 to 1801 (still flown at Fort York) but with an exception that a Welsh Dragon be in the middle.
I have had this opinion for more than 40 years and if you happen to see an England Flag in your pre 1996 cycling video's it will be me and I was scoffed at, back then.
This answer then to your question of what purpose. Well you did ask. what a nice chap I am. :roll:

tailwindhome

deejay wrote:

Fact is there is No Blue in an ENGLAND Flag. Quite simple really, I am an "Anglo-Saxon Englishman"
While on this other topic of yours, I have an opinion that I think should be a Fact.
The Union Flag is wrong and I see the Joke going on in Ulster at the moment.
The Union Flag should be (and since 1922) the same as that Union Flag being flown between 1606 to 1801 (still flown at Fort York) but with an exception that a Welsh Dragon be in the middle.
I have had this opinion for more than 40 years and if you happen to see an England Flag in your pre 1996 cycling video's it will be me and I was scoffed at, back then.
This answer then to your question of what purpose. Well you did ask. what a nice chap I am. :roll:

Is Northern Ireland no longer to be part of the Union?

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.

dennisn

TailWindHome wrote:

deejay wrote:

Fact is there is No Blue in an ENGLAND Flag. Quite simple really, I am an "Anglo-Saxon Englishman"
While on this other topic of yours, I have an opinion that I think should be a Fact.
The Union Flag is wrong and I see the Joke going on in Ulster at the moment.
The Union Flag should be (and since 1922) the same as that Union Flag being flown between 1606 to 1801 (still flown at Fort York) but with an exception that a Welsh Dragon be in the middle.
I have had this opinion for more than 40 years and if you happen to see an England Flag in your pre 1996 cycling video's it will be me and I was scoffed at, back then.
This answer then to your question of what purpose. Well you did ask. what a nice chap I am. :roll:

Is Northern Ireland no longer to be part of the Union?

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.

Wow. Just when I was beginning to think that I was the King of going off topic.

This flag waving seems really serious?