PunBB

Sam Wrote:

Quote:Do you know what chances his doctors gave him of beating the cancer he had? It was virtually nil.

Really? That's odd because testicular cancer has a very high successful treatment rate. It's up around 90%, actually. It's only terminal when the cancer goes systemic - invading the other organs of the body. I'm sure that hasn't happened in Armstrong's case because, frankly, he'd be dead. He can live wihout his testicles but he's not winning the Tour without his lungs or liver.

Well, pehaps I'm confusing Armstrong with someone else here, but I was almost sure that the cancer had spread into other organs, including his stomach, lungs, brain, and lymphatic system.

My statment that his chances of survival were "virtually nil" might have been a exaggeration, but if the cancer had spread as I'm thinking it did, it had to have been very low.

Sam Wrote:

Quote:Do you know what chances his doctors gave him of beating the cancer he had? It was virtually nil.

Really? That's odd because testicular cancer has a very high successful treatment rate. It's up around 90%, actually. It's only terminal when the cancer goes systemic - invading the other organs of the body. I'm sure that hasn't happened in Armstrong's case because, frankly, he'd be dead. He can live wihout his testicles but he's not winning the Tour without his lungs or liver.

I'm pretty sure the cancer spread to his brain

Sam Wrote:I'm not saying that Lance Armstrong did take steroids, but one of the potential side effects of injecting horse hormones (which increase muscular development and stamina) into your system is reproductive cancer - you know, like testicular cancer.

So, the question might be, what caused testicular cancer in an otherwise stupendiously healthy athlete? A freak of nature? Or was it environmental?

because he's an athlete who had testicular cancer it must mean he was on horse hormones? Non athletes don't get that form of cancer? Was Tom Green once a cyclist?

The Horrible Esthete Wrote:

Sam Wrote:

Quote:Do you know what chances his doctors gave him of beating the cancer he had? It was virtually nil.

Really? That's odd because testicular cancer has a very high successful treatment rate. It's up around 90%, actually. It's only terminal when the cancer goes systemic - invading the other organs of the body. I'm sure that hasn't happened in Armstrong's case because, frankly, he'd be dead. He can live wihout his testicles but he's not winning the Tour without his lungs or liver.

Well, pehaps I'm confusing Armstrong with someone else here, but I was almost sure that the cancer had spread into other organs, including his stomach, lungs, brain, and lymphatic system.

My statment that his chances of survival were "virtually nil" might have been a exaggeration, but if the cancer had spread as I'm thinking it did, it had to have been very low.

His chances were somewhere around 20%, at best. The cancer spread to his lungs and his brain. It is stated in his book, It's Not About the Bike, and the press conference he gave upon being diagnosed reveals similar information. It is now used in a LAF commercial to raise cancer awareness.

-Jenna

Jenna_Bird Wrote:His chances were somewhere around 20%, at best. The cancer spread to his lungs and his brain. It is stated in his book, It's Not About the Bike, and the press conference he gave upon being diagnosed reveals similar information. It is now used in a LAF commercial to raise cancer awareness.

Ah....Glad I wasn't imagining that...20% is far better than "virtually nil", but still pretty slim...

HERE are more facts....

emperor penguin Wrote:

Sam Wrote:I'm not saying that Lance Armstrong did take steroids, but one of the potential side effects of injecting horse hormones (which increase muscular development and stamina) into your system is reproductive cancer - you know, like testicular cancer.

So, the question might be, what caused testicular cancer in an otherwise stupendiously healthy athlete? A freak of nature? Or was it environmental?

because he's an athlete who had testicular cancer it must mean he was on horse hormones? Non athletes don't get that form of cancer? Was Tom Green once a cyclist?

I'm sure Tom Green has ridden a bike once or twice...

But no, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the testosterone of choice amongst cyclists has, as a potential side effect, testicular cancer. Lance Armstrong is a cyclist who developed testicular cancer. If I thought it was a logical that he then must have taken horse hormones, I would have said so. Ofcourse, I would have been wrong, because it's not logical to conclude that on the information I have re. Armstrong's case.

I said that the cause of his cancer and the basis for his amazing victories may be more mundane than Neiztche's ubermann theory come to life. I was provocatively suggesting that perhaps there is more to the Lance Armstrong story than Lance Armstrong is going to tell you about.

But, you have to excuse my cynicism. As I said before, I've known too many athletes to see anything heroic in what they do. Their possession of naturally superior athleticism is alwys in doubt and they tend to be self-absorbed, narcissistic bastards.

Buy hey. Maybe Lance is the exception to the rule? Someone has to be. Maybe not Landis, though.

Sam Wrote:But, you have to excuse my cynicism. As I said before, I've known too many athletes to see anything heroic in what they do. Their possession of naturally superior athleticism is alwys in doubt and they tend to be self-absorbed, narcissistic bastards.

Well, at least you can freely admit that a blanket generalization causes you to be skeptical of his achievements.... :thumb:

The Horrible Esthete Wrote:

Sam Wrote:But, you have to excuse my cynicism. As I said before, I've known too many athletes to see anything heroic in what they do. Their possession of naturally superior athleticism is always in doubt and they tend to be self-absorbed, narcissistic bastards.

Well, at least you can freely admit that a blanket generalization causes you to be skeptical of his achievements.... :thumb:

Oh sure. I have no problem admitting that my personal experience with Olympic calibre and professional athletes has made it next to impossible for me to shower them with praise.

I suppose it's a short-coming that I'll have to learn to live with. I'm good with that. Atleast it won't give me cancer.

Quote:Landis positive dope test confirmed
Sat Aug 5, 6:24 AM
By Julien Pretot

PARIS (Reuters) - Floyd Landis is likely to lose his Tour de France title after a second drugs sample confirmed a positive test for excessive amounts of the male sex hormone testosterone.

A statement issued by the International Cycling Union (UCI) on Saturday said Landis's B sample taken after his win in the 17th stage on July 20 had confirmed a doping offence.

Landis, who again denied ever taking drugs, was immediately sacked by his Swiss team Phonak.

He will now probably become the first rider ever to be stripped of the Tour de France title for doping, lose 450,000 euros ($575,700) prize money and face a two-year ban from the sport.

"Landis will be dismissed without notice for violating the team's internal Code of Ethics," Phonak said in a statement.

"Landis will continue to have legal options to contest the findings. However, this will be his personal affair and the Phonak team will no longer be involved in that."

In a statement on his Web site the 30-year-old American said he had never taken a banned substance.

"I have never taken any banned substance, including testosterone. I was the strongest man in the Tour de France, and that is why I am the champion," Landis said.

"I will fight these charges with the same determination and intensity that I bring to my training and racing. It is now my goal to clear my name and restore what I worked so hard to achieve."

EXPERTS

His lawyer Howard Jacobs said he was waiting to receive full laboratory documentation for the B test.

"In consultation with some of the leading medical and scientific experts, we will prove that Floyd Landis's victory in the 2006 Tour de France was not aided in any respect by the use of any banned substances," Jacobs said.

Landis and Jacobs will also question the UCI's premature release of the A sample findings and the anonymous leak of the carbon-isotope test results to the New York Times on July 31, the statement said.

The UCI statement said an analysis of the B sample confirmed the result of an adverse analytical finding notified by the anti-doping laboratory of Paris on July 26.

"In accordance to the anti-doping rules, the Anti-Doping Commission of the UCI will request that the USA Cycling Federation open a disciplinary procedure against the rider."

Spaniard Oscar Pereiro Sio, who finished second 57 seconds adrift of Landis in the overall standings, is now likely to be declared the winner of the race.

ASTOUNDING COMEBACK

Pereiro, who is due to give a news conference in Vigo at 1600 GMT, would then become the first Spaniard to win the Tour since Miguel Indurain's last victory in 1995.

Landis, 30, tested positive for testosterone after an astounding comeback in the last mountain stage of the world's greatest cycling race. It came just a day after a very poor performance which all but knocked him out of contention.

Landis now has 10 days to respond to the documents that are provided, according to U.S Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) rules.

Those documents, Landis's response and any documents USADA would provide will go to a review panel some time after the 10 days.

The review panel will make a recommendation whether or not there is a case. USADA, based on that recommendation, will then decide whether to charge Landis.

If USADA does charge the Phonak rider, he would have an opportunity to contest that decision and the recommended sanction before a U.S panel of judges.

Landis's lawyers could then take the matter to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and a long procedure would begin.

Testosterone speeds up recovery after exercise and generally improves stamina and strength. Last weekend Olympic 100 meters champion Justin Gatlin admitted he had tested positive for the same hormone

What a shock! (sarcasm)

Jenna_Bird Wrote:His chances were somewhere around 20%, at best. The cancer spread to his lungs and his brain. It is stated in his book, It's Not About the Bike, and the press conference he gave upon being diagnosed reveals similar information.

I'd hate for anyone to think I'm cynical, but I have to wonder if Lance Armstrong is the best available source of factual information on the legend of Lance Armstrong.

Sam Wrote:

Quote:face a two-year ban from the sport.

I always wonder why the ban from the sport (not just for cycling but for most sports) is so short. What's the saying, "Once a cheater, always a cheater"?

[quote="skippy the wonder dogI'd hate for anyone to think I'm cynical, but I have to wonder if Lance Armstrong is the best available source of factual information on the legend of Lance Armstrong.[/quote]


i love that post..it's so true :thumb: