A Fitness & exercise forum. FitnessBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » FitnessBanter.com forum » Fitness & Exercise » Weights
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Lance Armstrong's drug use may have caused his cancer



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 18th 06, 01:59 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing,alt.gossip.celebrities,misc.fitness.weights,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,alt.support.cancer
ilan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Lance Armstrong's drug use may have caused his cancer

Strictly speaking, which is to say the correct scientific approach,
you cannot make a conclusion for a single case, no
matter what the general statistical correlation. For example, it is
incorrect
to say, in a single instance, that a person developed lung cancer from
smoking. This applies to almost all forms of cancer, except perhaps
some special cases having to do with exposure to Plutonium, for
example.

Apart from this, the statement in the Subject of this thread is most
likely correct, because it follows from a false premise and any
implication
from a false premise is true.

-ilan


spoke in the wheel wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,213881,00.html

Lance Armstrong's Self-Inflicted Cancer?

Thursday , September 14, 2006

By Steven Milloy

Did the use of performance-enhancing drugs cause seven-time Tour de
France winner Lance Armstrong's testicular cancer? That's what a
Sports Illustrated columnist suggested this week. It's a provocative
comment that warrants scrutiny from a scientific perspective.

In E.M. Swift's article entitled, "The truth is out the Smoking gun
may finally be catching up with Lance," Swift described testimony
given by former Armstrong teammate Frankie Andreu and Andreu's wife in
a lawsuit between Armstrong and a sponsor that refused to pay
Armstrong a $5 million bonus because of doping allegations.

Andreu testified that while visiting Armstrong in the hospital for
treatment of testicular cancer in 1996, Andreu overheard Armstrong
tell his oncologist that he had used "steroids, testosterone,
cortisone, growth hormone and EPO [an illegal performance-enhancing
drug]."

Although both Armstrong and the physician disputed the testimony and
the case was settled out of court in Armstrong's favor, Swift
nonetheless commented, "Which testimony is more credible? The Andreus'
or Armstrong's? Ask yourself which party had the most to gain by
lying. And why is that particular testimony significant? Because one
of the possible side effects of prolonged steroid use is testicular
cancer."

Swift continued, "It's impossible to prove, but if what the Andreus
testified to under oath is true, that Lance Armstrong, role model and
hero to so many cancer survivors, may very well have helped bring
about his own cancer through his use of performance-enhancing drugs.
Young athletes tempted to go down that road need to know if that's the
case."

Certainly Swift's sensational charge that alleged steroid use by
Armstrong may have caused his testicular cancer has a certain
intuitive feel. After all, both endogenous and exogenous hormones are
known to be involved in the development of various cancers. Science,
however, is based on systematic observation of events, not a sports
columnists' "makes sense to me" mode of thinking.

A recent review published in the journal Current Sports Medicine
Reports associated steroid use with liver and kidney cancers. Some
studies have linked steroid use with prostate cancer. But no published
study links steroids use with testicular cancer in humans or
laboratory animals. I couldn't find a study that even suggested such a
linkage. It's not clear where Swift got the notion for his claim that
"one of the possible side effects of prolonged steroid use is
testicular cancer" - he cited no expert or study.

Keep in mind that steroids have been used and abused, particularly by
bodybuilders and other strength athletes, for more than 30 years. If
they caused testicular cancer, that association would likely have been
documented, or at least hinted at, in the scientific literature by
now.

Further, no published studies link the other performance enhancing
drugs mentioned by Swift - that is, testosterone, cortisone, human
growth hormone, and EPO - with testicular cancer. Exogenous
testosterone may increase the risk of prostate cancer in older men and
growth hormone has been associated with increased risk of colorectal
cancer in patients with acromegaly, but none of these associations
supports Swift's supposition about Armstrong.

The fact is that no one knows what causes testicular cancer. A number
of potential risk factors have been identified - including undescended
testicles, family history of testicular cancer, age, race, and body
size - but the origins of the disease are unknown. The good news,
however, is that testicular cancer can be treated and, very often,
cured.

None of this is said to justify the use of steroids or other
performance enhancing drugs. Aside from the ethical questions
surrounding their use, the abuse of steroids, growth hormone and
testosterone by athletes is associated with a number of serious
adverse health effects - not testicular cancer, however.

It's been a rough time for cycling. The second- through fifth-place
finishers of the 2005 Tour de France were excluded from the 2006 race
under a cloud of suspected drug use. Floyd Landis, the winner of the
2006 race, has had his title stripped because he failed a drug test
administered immediately following one of the most amazing one-day
performances in the Tour's history. Just this week, former Armstrong
friend Andreu and another former Armstrong teammate admitted they used
EPO in 1999 - the year Armstrong won his first Tour title.

Swift may very well be correct that "the truth" may catch up to Lance
Armstrong. Only time will tell. In the meantime, he ought to stay
focused on the facts rather than fueling the creation of sensational,
but junk science-based myths.


  #2  
Old September 18th 06, 02:16 AM posted to misc.fitness.weights
Curt James
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,396
Default Lance Armstrong's drug use may have caused his cancer

ilan wrote:
[...]

Apart from this, the statement in the Subject of this thread
is most likely correct, because it follows from a false premise
and any implication from a false premise is true.


Top-posting, schmop-posting, I think ilan's got the inside track for
the September humor award.

--
Curt

  #3  
Old September 18th 06, 05:58 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing,alt.gossip.celebrities,misc.fitness.weights,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,alt.support.cancer
Robert Schuh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 29
Default Lance Armstrong's drug use may have caused his cancer

ilan wrote:

Strictly speaking, which is to say the correct scientific approach,
you cannot make a conclusion for a single case, no
matter what the general statistical correlation. For example, it is
incorrect
to say, in a single instance, that a person developed lung cancer from
smoking. This applies to almost all forms of cancer, except perhaps
some special cases having to do with exposure to Plutonium, for
example.

Apart from this, the statement in the Subject of this thread is most
likely correct, because it follows from a false premise and any
implication
from a false premise is true.

-ilan


THE most important fact here is that if Lance had used every drug that this
moron claimed he did, none of them could give you cancer of any kind. I
would LOVE to know how having more Testosterone, Growth Hormone or
Erythropoietin could cause cancer. They give EPO to dialysis patients and
patients on Chemo. Before EPO, they gave dialysis patients Deca Durabolin,
an anabolic steroid. The person who came up with the theory that Lance's
alleged drug use gave him cancer is nothing short of a moron and knows
NOTHING about any of those drugs.





spoke in the wheel wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,213881,00.html

Lance Armstrong's Self-Inflicted Cancer?

Thursday , September 14, 2006

By Steven Milloy

Did the use of performance-enhancing drugs cause seven-time Tour de
France winner Lance Armstrong's testicular cancer? That's what a
Sports Illustrated columnist suggested this week. It's a provocative
comment that warrants scrutiny from a scientific perspective.

In E.M. Swift's article entitled, "The truth is out the Smoking gun
may finally be catching up with Lance," Swift described testimony
given by former Armstrong teammate Frankie Andreu and Andreu's wife in
a lawsuit between Armstrong and a sponsor that refused to pay
Armstrong a $5 million bonus because of doping allegations.

Andreu testified that while visiting Armstrong in the hospital for
treatment of testicular cancer in 1996, Andreu overheard Armstrong
tell his oncologist that he had used "steroids, testosterone,
cortisone, growth hormone and EPO [an illegal performance-enhancing
drug]."

Although both Armstrong and the physician disputed the testimony and
the case was settled out of court in Armstrong's favor, Swift
nonetheless commented, "Which testimony is more credible? The Andreus'
or Armstrong's? Ask yourself which party had the most to gain by
lying. And why is that particular testimony significant? Because one
of the possible side effects of prolonged steroid use is testicular
cancer."

Swift continued, "It's impossible to prove, but if what the Andreus
testified to under oath is true, that Lance Armstrong, role model and
hero to so many cancer survivors, may very well have helped bring
about his own cancer through his use of performance-enhancing drugs.
Young athletes tempted to go down that road need to know if that's the
case."

Certainly Swift's sensational charge that alleged steroid use by
Armstrong may have caused his testicular cancer has a certain
intuitive feel. After all, both endogenous and exogenous hormones are
known to be involved in the development of various cancers. Science,
however, is based on systematic observation of events, not a sports
columnists' "makes sense to me" mode of thinking.

A recent review published in the journal Current Sports Medicine
Reports associated steroid use with liver and kidney cancers. Some
studies have linked steroid use with prostate cancer. But no published
study links steroids use with testicular cancer in humans or
laboratory animals. I couldn't find a study that even suggested such a
linkage. It's not clear where Swift got the notion for his claim that
"one of the possible side effects of prolonged steroid use is
testicular cancer" - he cited no expert or study.

Keep in mind that steroids have been used and abused, particularly by
bodybuilders and other strength athletes, for more than 30 years. If
they caused testicular cancer, that association would likely have been
documented, or at least hinted at, in the scientific literature by
now.

Further, no published studies link the other performance enhancing
drugs mentioned by Swift - that is, testosterone, cortisone, human
growth hormone, and EPO - with testicular cancer. Exogenous
testosterone may increase the risk of prostate cancer in older men and
growth hormone has been associated with increased risk of colorectal
cancer in patients with acromegaly, but none of these associations
supports Swift's supposition about Armstrong.

The fact is that no one knows what causes testicular cancer. A number
of potential risk factors have been identified - including undescended
testicles, family history of testicular cancer, age, race, and body
size - but the origins of the disease are unknown. The good news,
however, is that testicular cancer can be treated and, very often,
cured.

None of this is said to justify the use of steroids or other
performance enhancing drugs. Aside from the ethical questions
surrounding their use, the abuse of steroids, growth hormone and
testosterone by athletes is associated with a number of serious
adverse health effects - not testicular cancer, however.

It's been a rough time for cycling. The second- through fifth-place
finishers of the 2005 Tour de France were excluded from the 2006 race
under a cloud of suspected drug use. Floyd Landis, the winner of the
2006 race, has had his title stripped because he failed a drug test
administered immediately following one of the most amazing one-day
performances in the Tour's history. Just this week, former Armstrong
friend Andreu and another former Armstrong teammate admitted they used
EPO in 1999 - the year Armstrong won his first Tour title.

Swift may very well be correct that "the truth" may catch up to Lance
Armstrong. Only time will tell. In the meantime, he ought to stay
focused on the facts rather than fueling the creation of sensational,
but junk science-based myths.





--
Robert Schuh
"Everything that elevates an individual above the herd and
intimidates the neighbour is henceforth called evil; and
the fair, modest, submissive and conforming mentality,
the mediocrity of desires attains moral designations and honors"
- Nietzsche

http://www.hardbopdrums.com/


  #4  
Old September 18th 06, 11:39 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing,alt.gossip.celebrities,misc.fitness.weights,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,alt.support.cancer
gk
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Lance Armstrong's drug use may have caused his cancer

This applies to almost all forms of cancer, except perhaps
some special cases having to do with exposure to Plutonium, for
example.


asbestos is the obvious one....
  #5  
Old September 19th 06, 12:24 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing,alt.gossip.celebrities,misc.fitness.weights,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,alt.support.cancer
A.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Lance Armstrong's drug use may have caused his cancer


Robert Schuh wrote:
ilan wrote:

Strictly speaking, which is to say the correct scientific approach,
you cannot make a conclusion for a single case, no
matter what the general statistical correlation. For example, it is
incorrect
to say, in a single instance, that a person developed lung cancer from
smoking. This applies to almost all forms of cancer, except perhaps
some special cases having to do with exposure to Plutonium, for
example.

Apart from this, the statement in the Subject of this thread is most
likely correct, because it follows from a false premise and any
implication
from a false premise is true.

-ilan


THE most important fact here is that if Lance had used every drug that this
moron claimed he did, none of them could give you cancer of any kind. I
would LOVE to know how having more Testosterone, Growth Hormone or
Erythropoietin could cause cancer. They give EPO to dialysis patients and
patients on Chemo. Before EPO, they gave dialysis patients Deca Durabolin,
an anabolic steroid. The person who came up with the theory that Lance's
alleged drug use gave him cancer is nothing short of a moron and knows
NOTHING about any of those drugs.


I know nothing about the effects of EPO on various cancers, but there
are _certainly_ tumors that eat testosterone as their favorite food, so
to
speak. I thought everyone knew that. The testosterone would not cause
the cancer - but you might have one cancerous cell in your testicles
right
now, and the sweeper cells are currently removing it, or some other
aspect
of your immune system might operate to stop the process. It might sit
there, and then eventually become two cells. Then four. But, if it is
given
extra T, it will grow faster and more quickly become invasive. So, if
you're
going to take T or E., be aware either hormone makes some cancers
grow more quickly - different than causation, but perhaps not the kind
of
thing you'd like to have happen in your body.

Anabolic steroids effect different people, differently. We'd have to
know
whether this was simultaneous use, as well. It's also possible there
are
other drugs we don't know about, possible mutagens. But since you're
an expert - do they use EPO on pregnant women? Is it a possible
mutagen? Is cancer a mutation? Where are the studies on all this? -
I'd
like to read them.

At any rate, here are some folks at Harvard who devised a study that
disagrees with you:

http://www.health.harvard.edu/fhg/up...ate1004a.shtml

And here are some people who studied the specific effects of
testosterone on prostate cancer:

http://patient.cancerconsultants.com....aspx?id=30385

There's bunches more where that came from. And these ARE
about causation. The data are suggestive enough to make the AUA
conclude that T is a risk for both the development and the growth
rate of testicular cancer. Isn't that what Lance had?

You might want to check facts more frequently, as things change. The
relationship between higher T levels and other things is showing up.

A.





spoke in the wheel wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,213881,00.html

Lance Armstrong's Self-Inflicted Cancer?

Thursday , September 14, 2006

By Steven Milloy

Did the use of performance-enhancing drugs cause seven-time Tour de
France winner Lance Armstrong's testicular cancer? That's what a
Sports Illustrated columnist suggested this week. It's a provocative
comment that warrants scrutiny from a scientific perspective.

In E.M. Swift's article entitled, "The truth is out the Smoking gun
may finally be catching up with Lance," Swift described testimony
given by former Armstrong teammate Frankie Andreu and Andreu's wife in
a lawsuit between Armstrong and a sponsor that refused to pay
Armstrong a $5 million bonus because of doping allegations.

Andreu testified that while visiting Armstrong in the hospital for
treatment of testicular cancer in 1996, Andreu overheard Armstrong
tell his oncologist that he had used "steroids, testosterone,
cortisone, growth hormone and EPO [an illegal performance-enhancing
drug]."

Although both Armstrong and the physician disputed the testimony and
the case was settled out of court in Armstrong's favor, Swift
nonetheless commented, "Which testimony is more credible? The Andreus'
or Armstrong's? Ask yourself which party had the most to gain by
lying. And why is that particular testimony significant? Because one
of the possible side effects of prolonged steroid use is testicular
cancer."

Swift continued, "It's impossible to prove, but if what the Andreus
testified to under oath is true, that Lance Armstrong, role model and
hero to so many cancer survivors, may very well have helped bring
about his own cancer through his use of performance-enhancing drugs.
Young athletes tempted to go down that road need to know if that's the
case."

Certainly Swift's sensational charge that alleged steroid use by
Armstrong may have caused his testicular cancer has a certain
intuitive feel. After all, both endogenous and exogenous hormones are
known to be involved in the development of various cancers. Science,
however, is based on systematic observation of events, not a sports
columnists' "makes sense to me" mode of thinking.

A recent review published in the journal Current Sports Medicine
Reports associated steroid use with liver and kidney cancers. Some
studies have linked steroid use with prostate cancer. But no published
study links steroids use with testicular cancer in humans or
laboratory animals. I couldn't find a study that even suggested such a
linkage. It's not clear where Swift got the notion for his claim that
"one of the possible side effects of prolonged steroid use is
testicular cancer" - he cited no expert or study.

Keep in mind that steroids have been used and abused, particularly by
bodybuilders and other strength athletes, for more than 30 years. If
they caused testicular cancer, that association would likely have been
documented, or at least hinted at, in the scientific literature by
now.

Further, no published studies link the other performance enhancing
drugs mentioned by Swift - that is, testosterone, cortisone, human
growth hormone, and EPO - with testicular cancer. Exogenous
testosterone may increase the risk of prostate cancer in older men and
growth hormone has been associated with increased risk of colorectal
cancer in patients with acromegaly, but none of these associations
supports Swift's supposition about Armstrong.

The fact is that no one knows what causes testicular cancer. A number
of potential risk factors have been identified - including undescended
testicles, family history of testicular cancer, age, race, and body
size - but the origins of the disease are unknown. The good news,
however, is that testicular cancer can be treated and, very often,
cured.

None of this is said to justify the use of steroids or other
performance enhancing drugs. Aside from the ethical questions
surrounding their use, the abuse of steroids, growth hormone and
testosterone by athletes is associated with a number of serious
adverse health effects - not testicular cancer, however.

It's been a rough time for cycling. The second- through fifth-place
finishers of the 2005 Tour de France were excluded from the 2006 race
under a cloud of suspected drug use. Floyd Landis, the winner of the
2006 race, has had his title stripped because he failed a drug test
administered immediately following one of the most amazing one-day
performances in the Tour's history. Just this week, former Armstrong
friend Andreu and another former Armstrong teammate admitted they used
EPO in 1999 - the year Armstrong won his first Tour title.

Swift may very well be correct that "the truth" may catch up to Lance
Armstrong. Only time will tell. In the meantime, he ought to stay
focused on the facts rather than fueling the creation of sensational,
but junk science-based myths.





--
Robert Schuh
"Everything that elevates an individual above the herd and
intimidates the neighbour is henceforth called evil; and
the fair, modest, submissive and conforming mentality,
the mediocrity of desires attains moral designations and honors"
- Nietzsche

http://www.hardbopdrums.com/


  #6  
Old September 19th 06, 12:28 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing,alt.gossip.celebrities,misc.fitness.weights,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,alt.support.cancer
A.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Lance Armstrong's drug use may have caused his cancer


A. wrote:
Robert Schuh wrote:
ilan wrote:

Strictly speaking, which is to say the correct scientific approach,
you cannot make a conclusion for a single case, no
matter what the general statistical correlation. For example, it is
incorrect
to say, in a single instance, that a person developed lung cancer from
smoking. This applies to almost all forms of cancer, except perhaps
some special cases having to do with exposure to Plutonium, for
example.

Apart from this, the statement in the Subject of this thread is most
likely correct, because it follows from a false premise and any
implication
from a false premise is true.

-ilan


THE most important fact here is that if Lance had used every drug that this
moron claimed he did, none of them could give you cancer of any kind. I
would LOVE to know how having more Testosterone, Growth Hormone or
Erythropoietin could cause cancer. They give EPO to dialysis patients and
patients on Chemo. Before EPO, they gave dialysis patients Deca Durabolin,
an anabolic steroid. The person who came up with the theory that Lance's
alleged drug use gave him cancer is nothing short of a moron and knows
NOTHING about any of those drugs.


I know nothing about the effects of EPO on various cancers, but there
are _certainly_ tumors that eat testosterone as their favorite food, so
to
speak. I thought everyone knew that. The testosterone would not cause
the cancer - but you might have one cancerous cell in your testicles
right
now, and the sweeper cells are currently removing it, or some other
aspect
of your immune system might operate to stop the process. It might sit
there, and then eventually become two cells. Then four. But, if it is
given
extra T, it will grow faster and more quickly become invasive. So, if
you're
going to take T or E., be aware either hormone makes some cancers
grow more quickly - different than causation, but perhaps not the kind
of
thing you'd like to have happen in your body.

Anabolic steroids effect different people, differently. We'd have to
know
whether this was simultaneous use, as well. It's also possible there
are
other drugs we don't know about, possible mutagens. But since you're
an expert - do they use EPO on pregnant women? Is it a possible
mutagen? Is cancer a mutation? Where are the studies on all this? -
I'd
like to read them.

At any rate, here are some folks at Harvard who devised a study that
disagrees with you:

http://www.health.harvard.edu/fhg/up...ate1004a.shtml

And here are some people who studied the specific effects of
testosterone on prostate cancer:

http://patient.cancerconsultants.com....aspx?id=30385

There's bunches more where that came from. And these ARE
about causation. The data are suggestive enough to make the AUA
conclude that T is a risk for both the development and the growth
rate of testicular cancer. Isn't that what Lance had?

You might want to check facts more frequently, as things change. The
relationship between higher T levels and other things is showing up.

A.


Oops - that was a definite connection between T and PROSTATE
cancer, not testicular cancer (although there are data on that, as
well,
but the AUA hasn't published that as its viewpoint, as they think
there's way more on the prostate issue).

I can't remember, of course, what Lance had.

No one will ever know exact causation in any one case, but it certainly
isn't foolish to entertain the hypothesis that using multiple kinds of
drugs in these categories might foul you up somehow.

Seems to me, it's a no-brainer.

A.




spoke in the wheel wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,213881,00.html

Lance Armstrong's Self-Inflicted Cancer?

Thursday , September 14, 2006

By Steven Milloy

Did the use of performance-enhancing drugs cause seven-time Tour de
France winner Lance Armstrong's testicular cancer? That's what a
Sports Illustrated columnist suggested this week. It's a provocative
comment that warrants scrutiny from a scientific perspective.

In E.M. Swift's article entitled, "The truth is out the Smoking gun
may finally be catching up with Lance," Swift described testimony
given by former Armstrong teammate Frankie Andreu and Andreu's wife in
a lawsuit between Armstrong and a sponsor that refused to pay
Armstrong a $5 million bonus because of doping allegations.

Andreu testified that while visiting Armstrong in the hospital for
treatment of testicular cancer in 1996, Andreu overheard Armstrong
tell his oncologist that he had used "steroids, testosterone,
cortisone, growth hormone and EPO [an illegal performance-enhancing
drug]."

Although both Armstrong and the physician disputed the testimony and
the case was settled out of court in Armstrong's favor, Swift
nonetheless commented, "Which testimony is more credible? The Andreus'
or Armstrong's? Ask yourself which party had the most to gain by
lying. And why is that particular testimony significant? Because one
of the possible side effects of prolonged steroid use is testicular
cancer."

Swift continued, "It's impossible to prove, but if what the Andreus
testified to under oath is true, that Lance Armstrong, role model and
hero to so many cancer survivors, may very well have helped bring
about his own cancer through his use of performance-enhancing drugs.
Young athletes tempted to go down that road need to know if that's the
case."

Certainly Swift's sensational charge that alleged steroid use by
Armstrong may have caused his testicular cancer has a certain
intuitive feel. After all, both endogenous and exogenous hormones are
known to be involved in the development of various cancers. Science,
however, is based on systematic observation of events, not a sports
columnists' "makes sense to me" mode of thinking.

A recent review published in the journal Current Sports Medicine
Reports associated steroid use with liver and kidney cancers. Some
studies have linked steroid use with prostate cancer. But no published
study links steroids use with testicular cancer in humans or
laboratory animals. I couldn't find a study that even suggested such a
linkage. It's not clear where Swift got the notion for his claim that
"one of the possible side effects of prolonged steroid use is
testicular cancer" - he cited no expert or study.

Keep in mind that steroids have been used and abused, particularly by
bodybuilders and other strength athletes, for more than 30 years. If
they caused testicular cancer, that association would likely have been
documented, or at least hinted at, in the scientific literature by
now.

Further, no published studies link the other performance enhancing
drugs mentioned by Swift - that is, testosterone, cortisone, human
growth hormone, and EPO - with testicular cancer. Exogenous
testosterone may increase the risk of prostate cancer in older men and
growth hormone has been associated with increased risk of colorectal
cancer in patients with acromegaly, but none of these associations
supports Swift's supposition about Armstrong.

The fact is that no one knows what causes testicular cancer. A number
of potential risk factors have been identified - including undescended
testicles, family history of testicular cancer, age, race, and body
size - but the origins of the disease are unknown. The good news,
however, is that testicular cancer can be treated and, very often,
cured.

None of this is said to justify the use of steroids or other
performance enhancing drugs. Aside from the ethical questions
surrounding their use, the abuse of steroids, growth hormone and
testosterone by athletes is associated with a number of serious
adverse health effects - not testicular cancer, however.

It's been a rough time for cycling. The second- through fifth-place
finishers of the 2005 Tour de France were excluded from the 2006 race
under a cloud of suspected drug use. Floyd Landis, the winner of the
2006 race, has had his title stripped because he failed a drug test
administered immediately following one of the most amazing one-day
performances in the Tour's history. Just this week, former Armstrong
friend Andreu and another former Armstrong teammate admitted they used
EPO in 1999 - the year Armstrong won his first Tour title.

Swift may very well be correct that "the truth" may catch up to Lance
Armstrong. Only time will tell. In the meantime, he ought to stay
focused on the facts rather than fueling the creation of sensational,
but junk science-based myths.





--
Robert Schuh
"Everything that elevates an individual above the herd and
intimidates the neighbour is henceforth called evil; and
the fair, modest, submissive and conforming mentality,
the mediocrity of desires attains moral designations and honors"
- Nietzsche

http://www.hardbopdrums.com/


  #7  
Old September 19th 06, 12:31 AM posted to misc.fitness.weights
Curt James
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,396
Default Lance Armstrong's drug use may have caused his cancer

DZ wrote:
Robert Schuh wrote:

[...]

snip I would LOVE to know how having more Testosterone,
Growth Hormone or Erythropoietin could cause cancer.


Increased GH is linked to an increased rate of cancers. It is not a
simple correlation. When acromegaly patients are treated for the
increased GH, the cancer rates drop to that of the general
population. Moreover, in acromegaly, the the post-treatment GH level
is by far the strongest predictor of mortality.


Pfft! You expect anyone to take the word of... what was it?

(Googles)

Oh, yes, here it is...

http://groups.google.com/group/misc....f7cf9d15df30a2


You expect anyone to take the word of an "anonymous pussy"??? D'OH!

--
Curt

  #8  
Old September 19th 06, 06:42 PM posted to misc.fitness.weights
Pete
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,699
Default Lance Armstrong's drug use may have caused his cancer

"DZ" schreef:

Increased GH is linked to an increased rate of cancers. It is not a
simple correlation. When acromegaly patients are treated for the
increased GH, the cancer rates drop to that of the general
population. Moreover, in acromegaly, the the post-treatment GH level
is by far the strongest predictor of mortality.


I dont think you can compare AcroMegaly patients to athletes who use Gh.

They use it in cycles, not years on end...

----
Pete


  #9  
Old September 19th 06, 09:06 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing,alt.gossip.celebrities,misc.fitness.weights,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,alt.support.cancer
Kyle Legate
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default Lance Armstrong's drug use may have caused his cancer

A. wrote:

Oops - that was a definite connection between T and PROSTATE
cancer, not testicular cancer (although there are data on that, as
well,
but the AUA hasn't published that as its viewpoint, as they think
there's way more on the prostate issue).

I can't remember, of course, what Lance had.

I think Lance had brain cancer.

No one will ever know exact causation in any one case, but it certainly
isn't foolish to entertain the hypothesis that using multiple kinds of
drugs in these categories might foul you up somehow.

Seems to me, it's a no-brainer.

So even Lance should get it.
  #10  
Old September 20th 06, 02:45 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing,alt.gossip.celebrities,misc.fitness.weights,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,alt.support.cancer
Steph
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Lance Armstrong's drug use may have caused his cancer


"Kyle Legate" wrote in message
...
A. wrote:

Oops - that was a definite connection between T and PROSTATE
cancer, not testicular cancer (although there are data on that, as
well,
but the AUA hasn't published that as its viewpoint, as they think
there's way more on the prostate issue).

I can't remember, of course, what Lance had.

I think Lance had brain cancer.


No he had testicular cancer with mets to the brain



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Lance Armstrong's drug use may have caused his cancer Will Brink Weights 21 September 17th 06 12:07 AM
Lance Armstrong's drug use may have caused his cancer turtletrot1 Weights 1 September 16th 06 08:26 PM
Lance Armstrong's drug use may have caused his cancer Nancy2 Weights 1 September 16th 06 01:37 PM
Lance Armstrong's drug use may have caused his cancer benjo maso Weights 2 September 16th 06 03:34 AM
Lance Armstrong's drug use may have caused his cancer Pez D Spencer Weights 0 September 15th 06 06:10 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 FitnessBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.