Nike under scrutiny (Armstong-related)

[djg21]

According to the NY Daily News:

Nike may have had impact on Lance Armstrong scandal, possibly involved in what USADA called 'most sophisticated' doping program ever

Nike raised eyebrows from the French Alps to Oregon’s Cascade Range last week when it announced that it was standing by Lance Armstrong, despite the avalanche of evidence presented in the United States Anti-Doping Agency report that details why the cyclist was stripped of his seven Tour de France titles.

. . . .

There is evidence that suggests Nike is not simply a sponsor that chose to remain visibly loyal to a scandal-stained athlete, but an active participant in what the USADA report described as the most sophisticated doping program in sports history.

. . . .

Kathy Lemond, the wife of American cyclist Greg Lemond, . . . . testified under oath during a 2006 deposition that Nike paid former UCI president Hein Verbruggen $500,000 to cover up a positive drug test.
Read more at: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/i-team/nike-left-footprint-lance-scandal-article-1.1184431#ixzz29TTOfjZn; Cycling News reports on Daily News Report at http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-did-nike-pay-dollar-500000-to-verbruggen-to-cover-up-armstrong-positive; and on Paul Willerton's plans to protest against Nike at http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/former-armstrong-teammate-plans-nike-protest.

[rain dogs]

Wow. $500,000 from Nike to Hein Verbruggen. It doesn't surprise me. They were creating a myth that they all made billions off of. I wonder how much Oakley and Trek threw in the pot?

Armstrong getting Cancer from all the drugs he was taking must have only been a bonus story line for all these corporations. It made him 'die' and 'return' stronger like he's some Jesus or something.I don't really think this, but it is truly interesting to wonder: What if Armstrong never really had cancer, that it was all an elaborate fiction to make billions an control and empire?

We're very lenient with his story anyway.

Some see: Talented, promising, young athelete's career derailed by Cancer. He "beats" it and comes back stronger only to win the most difficult event in history 7 times and set up a cancer fighting organization that has inspried millions. Who cares if he cheated? The End justifies the means.

When the truth is likely more:

Above average cyclist with limited high end potential turns to doping and it ruins his body. He gets cancer from the drugs and numerous organizations and sponsors interested in his comeback see dollar signs and rig the sport ensuring he wins through doping and corruption 7 times. They build a myth, create an organization which has church-like followers and when the truth comes out only those in denial believe, because it hurts to much to have invested so much just to be duped by not only a doper, but someone who paid off the UCI for his success.

[PQJ]

Recognizing full well that this story may be something or nothing, it nevertheless confirms my opinion of Nike, which is that it is a $hitty enterprise, socially speaking, with a long history of pissing on the weak and standing by the unscrupulous. I haven't bought any Nike products in a long, long time and likely won't in the future. (To say nothing of the fact that if you want high performance athletic gear, Nike isn't the place to get it from.)

Nike - Just Boycott It

[jr59]

Wow. $500,000 from Nike to Hein Verbruggen. It doesn't surprise me. They were creating a myth that they all made billions off of. I wonder how much Oakley and Trek threw in the pot?

Armstrong getting Cancer from all the drugs he was taking must have only been a bonus story line for all these corporations. It made him 'die' and 'return' stronger like he's some Jesus or something.I don't really think this, but it is truly interesting to wonder: What if Armstrong never really had cancer, that it was all an elaborate fiction to make billions an control and empire?

We're very lenient with his story anyway.

Some see: Talented, promising, young athelete's career derailed by Cancer. He "beats" it and comes back stronger only to win the most difficult event in history 7 times and set up a cancer fighting organization that has inspried millions. Who cares if he cheated? The End justifies the means.

When the truth is likely more:

Above average cyclist with limited high end potential turns to doping and it ruins his body. He gets cancer from the drugs and numerous organizations and sponsors interested in his comeback see dollar signs and rig the sport ensuring he wins through doping and corruption 7 times. They build a myth, create an organization which has church-like followers and when the truth comes out only those in denial believe, because it hurts to much to have invested so much just to be duped by not only a doper, but someone who paid off the UCI.

I think it's somewhere in between these 2!

[MattTuck]

How does Kathy Lemond know this? It appears from the article that it is heresay.

And even if it is true, it was a positive for a corticosteroid to treat a saddle sore....

I haven't bought something from Nike since about 2002. Lots of better stuff out there.

[PQJ]

Above average cyclist with limited high end potential turns to doping and it ruins his body. He gets cancer from the drugs and numerous organizations and sponsors interested in his comeback see dollar signs and rig the sport ensuring he wins through doping and corruption 7 times. They build a myth, create an organization which has church-like followers and when the truth comes out only those in denial believe, because it hurts to much to have invested so much just to be duped by not only a doper, but someone who paid off the UCI.

You'll get a lot of heat for this but I think you're spot on. I (and others) have said before that Livestrong was a shield for all we now know Armstrong to be. We will never know whether Armstrong was truly motivated to help those with the disease or if he saw the inherent potential for manipulating public opinion of him in the cancer 'mission' and a nonprofit devoted to its cause . I fully appreciate how a cancer patient could draw inspiration from Armstrong's story (as it's been created), and how they could distinguish between Armstrong the athlete/liar/cheater/prick and Armstrong the cancer survivor. I'd be curious to know how these people would feel if it ever came to light that Armstrong's charitable endeavors were completely self-serving.

Remember how the comeback was billed as a way to promote cancer awareness? And the hubbub surrounding his attempt at 'transparency' and how quickly that died? I remember a lot about the 2009 Tour, including the Armstrong/Contador polemic and Armstrong's promotional activities in the final week (none of which had anything to with promoting cancer awareness). The only thing I remember about the cancer cause was Nike's chalkbot.

[54ny77]

Nike had nothing to do with the bribe--er, fee. It was a wholly unknown subsidiary of a subsidiary of an affiliate of a holding company based in Girona called El Bistec, Inc. that makes knockoff Nike gear that was involved. We should all have the proper facts.

http://www.markmatters.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/fake-nike.jpg

[Rada]

Lot of stupid coments and conjectures in this thread.

[Dave B]

I think it is possible that his ped's gave him cancer. I think it is foolish to think there was a purpose to get it or fake it. However he got it, he beat it. I think anyone who goes through this deserves empathy or some level of respect.

Did he promote his recovery and benefit from it. Maybe, but other have benefitted from it as well...sick sick people have gotten help in a varierty of ways.

Lance as a pro athlete does mix often with Lance the philanthropic entity. I think people blur those lines to make their points more valid. No one is all good or all bad. For the amount of vitrol here towards him and every single flaw we can find, there is a level of admiration and respect he has earned with his moments of kindess for others.

Shame on you if you are unable to put your own hate away to see that what "LANCE" means to some is quite different then to what Lance Armstrong means to sport/cyclists.

[4Rings6Stars]

Lot of stupid coments and conjectures in this thread.

In all of the Lance threads.

[BumbleBeeDave]

We should not be posting links to every story out there that purports to dredge up something new on Lance--ESPECIALLY the NY Daily News, which is not exactly know for its scrupulously objective reporting on any issue!

:no:

BBD

[slidey]

The motives are what define you...watch this video for an example:

http://youtu.be/Si9gZc0vouE

Unintentional acts of benevolence don't deserve the undue amount of merit they receive, especially when the protagonist is a celebrity. Lance's only goal was to make money, plain and simple, cancer was/is merely the business model. I can assure you that if it weren't for him going through cancer, we'd all be witness to another business model which might/might not have worked as well in his favour.

However, I don't believe that the cancer was a hoax...it's definitely in the realm of possibility, but I can't say I have enough info to support it. And strangely enough, I don't think even Lance can stoop so low.

[firerescuefin]

We should not be posting links to every story out there that purports to dredge up something new on Lance--ESPECIALLY the NY Daily News, which is not exactly know for its scrupulously objective reporting on any issue!

:no:

BBD

Glad to see you're the measurer of what's considered newsworthy. Business is about ROI...almost exclusively...whether your paying 3rd world worker pennies or an under the table payment to the UCI. If you think this wasn't feasible..or even probable given what we know now...you need to get out more often.

[malcolm]

Wow. $500,000 from Nike to Hein Verbruggen. It doesn't surprise me. They were creating a myth that they all made billions off of. I wonder how much Oakley and Trek threw in the pot?

Armstrong getting Cancer from all the drugs he was taking must have only been a bonus story line for all these corporations. It made him 'die' and 'return' stronger like he's some Jesus or something.I don't really think this, but it is truly interesting to wonder: What if Armstrong never really had cancer, that it was all an elaborate fiction to make billions an control and empire?

We're very lenient with his story anyway.

Some see: Talented, promising, young athelete's career derailed by Cancer. He "beats" it and comes back stronger only to win the most difficult event in history 7 times and set up a cancer fighting organization that has inspried millions. Who cares if he cheated? The End justifies the means.

When the truth is likely more:

Above average cyclist with limited high end potential turns to doping and it ruins his body. He gets cancer from the drugs and numerous organizations and sponsors interested in his comeback see dollar signs and rig the sport ensuring he wins through doping and corruption 7 times. They build a myth, create an organization which has church-like followers and when the truth comes out only those in denial believe, because it hurts to much to have invested so much just to be duped by not only a doper, but someone who paid off the UCI for his success.

I know of very little clinical support of PEDs as the source of his cancer. You can certainly find data to suggest HGH may enhance the growth of various tumors, but I don't think any peer reviewed literature supports the creation of de novo cancer linked to PEDs.
I think argument can be made that they might make discovery more complicated and possibly enhance growth, but beyond that I suspect is pure conjecture.

[LO^OK]

I think it is possible that his ped's gave him cancer. I think it is foolish to think there was a purpose to get it or fake it. However he got it, he beat it. I think anyone who goes through this deserves empathy or some level of respect.

Did he promote his recovery and benefit from it. Maybe, but other have benefitted from it as well...sick sick people have gotten help in a varierty of ways.

Lance as a pro athlete does mix often with Lance the philanthropic entity. I think people blur those lines to make their points more valid. No one is all good or all bad. For the amount of vitrol here towards him and every single flaw we can find, there is a level of admiration and respect he has earned with his moments of kindess for others.

Shame on you if you are unable to put your own hate away to see that what "LANCE" means to some is quite different then to what Lance Armstrong means to sport/cyclists.

"Vitriol"? "Hate"? Some of us should be ashamed? You must be living on an inverted moral universe! The man is a vainglorious manipulative fraudster on a grand scale, apparently organised an entire corrupt enterprising web, amassed millions, robbed honest people of living, and perhaps worst of all, manipulated and exploited emotionally millions of fans. Madoff pale by comparison. In fact they should be not in the same sentence as financial swindlers abound, but monstrosities like Armstrong are very very few and far between.

[BumbleBeeDave]

Glad to see you're the measurer of what's considered newsworthy. Business is about ROI...almost exclusively...whether your paying 3rd world worker pennies or an under the table payment to the UCI. If you think this wasn't feasible..or even probable given what we know now...you need to get out more often.

. . . do you judge that I'm not allowed to have an opinion and express it here about what's newsworthy or not? That seems to be what you're implying.

BBD

[rain dogs]

I know of very little clinical support of PEDs as the source of his cancer. You can certainly find data to suggest HGH may enhance the growth of various tumors, but I don't think any peer reviewed literature supports the creation of de novo cancer linked to PEDs.
I think argument can be made that they might make discovery more complicated and possibly enhance growth, but beyond that I suspect is pure conjecture.

It was testimony that Ferrari was concerned that the drugs he gave Lance gave him Cancer. I don't have time to find dozens of sources but the link between HGH, Steroids and cancer is pretty well documented. Obviously no one, even Dr. Ferrari, will know. But, it's not an unreasonable question. It's very, very possible.

"There are numerous publications in prestigious peer reviewed scientific journals showing that elevated IGF-1 (HGH) levels are strongly associated with major excess risks of colon, prostate, and breast cancers; even minor elevations are associated with up to 7-fold increased risks of breast cancer."

http://www.preventcancer.com/avoidable/breast_cancer/hgh_risks.htm

"Some frequent side effects of testosterone and anabolic steroids are: elevated blood pressure, increase in bad cholesterol, severe acne, baldness, structural changes in the heart, liver and kidney damage, development of female breast tissue, sexual dysfunction, infertility, shrinking testicles, prostate enlargement, aggression and depression, masculinization in women, increase of body hair, and in extreme cases congestive heart failure, heart attacks, sudden cardiac death, and liver, prostate or kidney cancer."

http://www.true-natural-bodybuilding.com/steroids.html

Steroids are cancer promoters for both liver and kidney cancer. Oral steroids are particularly implicated. In the past few years, 14 athletes taking anabolic steroids have had hepatocellular (liver) cancer.

All were on oral steroids. All anabolic steroids are based on testosterone.

http://www.personaltrainertoday.com/anabolic-steroids-how-dangerous-are-they

I'm sure you could find more since that took me about 2 minutes.

[Elefantino]

The man is a vainglorious manipulative fraudster ...
That's awesome. And it's from Belgium. Even better.

[jr59]

Lot of stupid coments and conjectures in this thread.


In all of the Lance threads.

Agree!

[malcolm]

It was testimony that Ferrari was concerned that the drugs he gave Lance gave him Cancer. I don't have time to find dozens of sources but the link between HGH, Steroids and cancer is pretty well documented. Obviously no one, even Dr. Ferrari, will know. But, it's not an unreasonable question. It's very, very possible.

"There are numerous publications in prestigious peer reviewed scientific journals showing that elevated IGF-1 (HGH) levels are strongly associated with major excess risks of colon, prostate, and breast cancers; even minor elevations are associated with up to 7-fold increased risks of breast cancer."

http://www.preventcancer.com/avoidable/breast_cancer/hgh_risks.htm

"Some frequent side effects of testosterone and anabolic steroids are: elevated blood pressure, increase in bad cholesterol, severe acne, baldness, structural changes in the heart, liver and kidney damage, development of female breast tissue, sexual dysfunction, infertility, shrinking testicles, prostate enlargement, aggression and depression, masculinization in women, increase of body hair, and in extreme cases congestive heart failure, heart attacks, sudden cardiac death, and liver, prostate or kidney cancer."

http://www.true-natural-bodybuilding.com/steroids.html

Steroids are cancer promoters for both liver and kidney cancer. Oral steroids are particularly implicated. In the past few years, 14 athletes taking anabolic steroids have had hepatocellular (liver) cancer.

All were on oral steroids. All anabolic steroids are based on testosterone.

http://www.personaltrainertoday.com/anabolic-steroids-how-dangerous-are-they

I'm sure you could find more since that took me about 2 minutes.

I would argue it isn't at all well established you are referring to editorials and opinion not peer reviewed science.

I don't think any proof for cancer in particular testicular arising de novo exists. I agree it may cause it to proliferate or even enhance its growth, but to arise from normal cells or induce the cancerous transformation I would have to see a peer reviewed study. I just don't think it happens.
I suspect Armstrong had an underlying testicular cancer that may have been made difficult to detect or even made to grow faster and possibly become metastatic faster but to say his use of PEDs produced a de noveo cancer in a huge stretch.

hepatocellular carcinoma is a different animal from testicular ca. Most hepatocellular carcinoma in this country arises from cirrhosis secondary to chronic hepatitis or alcohol. Steroids may well be linked to liver Ca and may induce hepatoma, but you can't extrapolate liver Ca to testicular Ca.

I don't have to do the research i didn't make the assertion

[goonster]

I think it is possible that his ped's gave him cancer.
If this were true , a lot more high-profile riders would have cancer directly attributable to the PED's.

Doped members of the pro peloton 1994~2006 probably represent a population similar in size to East German elite athletes pre '89.

http://www1.sportschau.de/sportschau_specials/doping/webmagazin/events/3_8_ddr/oral_turinabol_imago_810.jpg

[djg21]

We should not be posting links to every story out there that purports to dredge up something new on Lance--ESPECIALLY the NY Daily News, which is not exactly know for its scrupulously objective reporting on any issue!

:no:

BBD

I disagree with you here Dave. While the Daily News is only slightly less yellow than the NY Post, it is a newspaper of record for much of Long Island.

Granted this was a story mined by the Daily News from deposition testimony given by Kathy Lemond six years ago. But the mainstream media could have cared less about testimony offered in the SCA litigation at that time, and Ms. Lemond's testimony has taken on new relevance given recent developments.

As an aside, I think it notable that the Daily News even ran this story, despite the fact that it doesn't involve the Giants, Jets or Yankees.

I also think that Nike should be held to account for any funds that it may have provided to Verbruggen and the UCI. More importantly, I'd like to see Verbrugen and the UCI account for any funds that it may have received from Nike. I agree with the posters above that this may prove to be something or nothing, and that Ms. Lemond's testimony alone isn't sufficient to reach any conclusions. But it deserves a look.

Whether or not Lance's PED use caused his cancer is irrelevant and speculative.

[BumbleBeeDave]

I disagree with you here Dave. While the Daily News is only slightly less yellow than the NY Post, it is a newspaper of record for much of Long Island.

. . . I just don't agree with it! :rolleyes:

You're entitled to your opinion just like anyone else here. I guess even me . . . ;)

BBD

[firerescuefin]

. . . do you judge that I'm not allowed to have an opinion and express it here about what's newsworthy or not? That seems to be what you're implying.

BBD

No....what I am saying is I disagree with your post. The story may be valid given the source and recent event. Velonews, cyclingnews, Eurosport, others have found it fit to run. Reach...maybe...Feasible...absolutely

[fiamme red]

I disagree with you here Dave. While the Daily News is only slightly less yellow than the NY Post, it is a newspaper of record for much of Long Island.You're probably thinking of Newsday, not the Daily News, which is a city paper.

The Daily News has had regular and detailed coverage of doping stories in cycling for the last few years. So I wouldn't dismiss their reports as tabloid trash on this subject. I recall Cyclingnews.com citing the Daily News as a source a number of times.

[bluesea]

The man is a vainglorious manipulative fraudster on a grand scale...


True, but perhaps it might be better to flash-headline this at the top of the forum, so people don't need to post it every 60min? Dramatic music would help.

[djg21]

You're probably thinking of Newsday, not the Daily News, which is a city paper.

The Daily News has had regular and detailed coverage of doping stories in cycling for the last few years. So I wouldn't dismiss their reports as tabloid trash on this subject. I recall Cyclingnews.com citing the Daily News as a source a number of times.

Yes. You are right. My mistake.

[Dave B]

If this were true , a lot more high-profile riders would have cancer directly attributable to the PED's.

Doped members of the pro peloton 1994~2006 probably represent a population similar in size to East German elite athletes pre '89.

http://www1.sportschau.de/sportschau_specials/doping/webmagazin/events/3_8_ddr/oral_turinabol_imago_810.jpg

Can't add inflection. I think it could be argued that it might be possible his PED's gave him cancer. Better? ;)

[Ahneida Ride]

. . . I just don't agree with it! :rolleyes:

You're entitled to your opinion just like anyone else here. I guess even me . . . ;)

BBD

Not me ..... I am not entitled to any opinion.
As I am still in DOUBLE SECRET PROBATION.

[rain dogs]

I agree it may cause it to proliferate or even enhance its growth,....

I suspect Armstrong had an underlying testicular cancer that may have been made difficult to detect or even made to grow faster and possibly become metastatic faster...

...I didn't make the assertion

I think we're getting close to introducing a strawman about my use of the word "gave" and the need for a peer reviewed study.

What's important is not the assertion that his doping "gave" him cancer de novo. It's not important that teammates said Ferrari was concerned that he "gave" Lance cancer with all those treatments....

What is important, and what my point is, is that Lance is positioning himself to be a becon of health and a leader in the fight agaisnt cancer. That's his own position, he's choosing that. What's important is how he taking PED's might have affected his life with cancer.

If you go to a livestrong website they outline healthy living, they address Cancer prevention, exercise, ride your bike, buy your Nike's and run, they are trying to use Armstrong as an example to follow. Cancer can be beat. You can still achieve great things. Prevention and early diagnosis, health from sport etc.

So how does Armstrong doing loads of performance enhancing substances fit within this image? Is doesn't. It's in complete conflict with the idea of healthy living that they are literally selling at Livestrong.com. Just as Nike paying off Verbruggen is in conflict with their image of the greatness of sport.

He's used his philanthropy as a shield against criticism for years, and now, in light of evidence of his rampant use of PED's he should be held accountable to explaining how that fits within his example of healthy living. When Steroids, HGH and other PED's are known to reduce life expectancy, increase likelihood of cancers in addition to being cheating in his sport, he needs to answer to his Livestrong supporters. It has nothing to do with liking or not liking Armstrong... it has to do with thinking critically about the image he tries to create and the conflict his actions have vs that image.

That's the point. If it came out that Lance was a chain-smoker would we be saying.... "Ahhh, it's ok It probably didn't give him testicular cancer. He's still an inspiration."

[jpw]

My take is that the Armstrong camp will be working overtime to engineer stories against Lance in the media that they know are false and that they will later show to be false to introduce a stronger measure of doubt about other testimony...that they can't demolish.

[54ny77]

remember this ad?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=MIl5RxhLZ5U

i thought it was great at the time.

oh well, it was fun watching it all.

[jr59]

When Steroids, HGH and other PED's are known to reduce life expectancy, increase likelihood of cancers

"

You KNOW this how?

In fact HGH and T are prescribed every day, here in this country.

With the stated fact, or fact according to you, shows a lack of creditably in what you say.

[tuxbailey]

remember this ad?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=MIl5RxhLZ5U

i thought it was great at the time.

oh well, it was fun watching it all.

+1

I was just talking to my coworker today about this same ad...

[BumbleBeeDave]

No....what I am saying is I disagree with your post. The story may be valid given the source and recent event. Velonews, cyclingnews, Eurosport, others have found it fit to run. Reach...maybe...Feasible...absolutely

I appreciate it.

I guess it's my years in newspapers that are filtering all of this. This is the kind of larger story where many news outlets will pick up stories and just re-run them just to have something "new" to run on the subject. They don't do any fact-checking of their own and there have been many instances where outlets grab something and run with it--and a short time later it turns out the original story was wrong. It happened to the newspaper I worked for more than I wanted to see.

BBD

[malcolm]

I think we're getting close to introducing a strawman about my use of the word "gave" and the need for a peer reviewed study.

What's important is not the assertion that his doping "gave" him cancer de novo. It's not important that teammates said Ferrari was concerned that he "gave" Lance cancer with all those treatments....

What is important, and what my point is, is that Lance is positioning himself to be a becon of health and a leader in the fight agaisnt cancer. That's his own position, he's choosing that. What's important is how he taking PED's might have affected his life with cancer.

If you go to a livestrong website they outline healthy living, they address Cancer prevention, exercise, ride your bike, buy your Nike's and run, they are trying to use Armstrong as an example to follow. Cancer can be beat. You can still achieve great things. Prevention and early diagnosis, health from sport etc.

So how does Armstrong doing loads of performance enhancing substances fit within this image? Is doesn't. It's in complete conflict with the idea of healthy living that they are literally selling at Livestrong.com. Just as Nike paying off Verbruggen is in conflict with their image of the greatness of sport.

He's used his philanthropy as a shield against criticism for years, and now, in light of evidence of his rampant use of PED's he should be held accountable to explaining how that fits within his example of healthy living. When Steroids, HGH and other PED's are known to reduce life expectancy, increase likelihood of cancers in addition to being cheating in his sport, he needs to answer to his Livestrong supporters. It has nothing to do with liking or not liking Armstrong... it has to do with thinking critically about the image he tries to create and the conflict his actions have vs that image.

That's the point. If it came out that Lance was a chain-smoker would we be saying.... "Ahhh, it's ok It probably didn't give him testicular cancer. He's still an inspiration."

I don't disagree with anything you said except the it gave him cancer. Maybe it's the science background but contributed to enhanced or made worse is much different especially when it comes to something as emotionally charged as cancer.

Your paragraph at the end is an example of how misinformation gets spread, I'm not sure but I don't believe smoking is a risk for testicular ca., sure it's bad but testicular ca is not a particular risk of smoking at least not that I'm aware of. Cancers are all bad but very different.

I also don't think his charity started as a shield, like I've said before he most likely isn't all bad. Now did it eventually be used as that, well we probably have common ground there.

Anyway I'm done here, I didn't mean to call you out or be argumentative. I suspect we agree more than disagree, but apparently some of the nuances mean more to me and that speaks more about me than anything else. Sorry if it seemed I was being petty or trying to cloud the argument.

[rain dogs]

You KNOW this how?

In fact HGH and T are prescribed every day, here in this country.

With the stated fact, or fact according to you, shows a lack of creditably in what you say.

I'm not a doctor, and I'm not pretending to be one. But there appears to be evidence out there that supports this. If people are going to say I lack credibility and I need to provide peer-reviewed studies, then please expect the same of yourselves and refute my points with your own studies which prove otherwise.

"Anabolic steroid and peptide hormones or growth factors are utilized to increase the performance of athletes of professional or amateur sports.
Despite their well-documented adverse effects, the use of some of these agents has significantly grown and has been extended also to non-athletes
with the aim to improve appearance or to counteract ageing. Pre-clinical studies and epidemiological observations in patients with an excess of
hormone production or in patients chronically treated with hormones/growth factors for various pathologies have warned about the potential risk
of cancer development and progression which may be also associated to the use of certain doping agents. Anabolic steroids have been described
to provoke liver tumours; growth hormone or high levels of its mediator insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) have been associated with colon,
breast, and prostate cancers. Actually, IGF-1 promotes cell cycle progression and inhibits apoptosis either by triggering other growth factors or by
interacting with pathways which have an established role in carcinogenesis and cancer promotion. More recently, the finding that erythropoietin
(Epo) may promote angiogenesis (a fundamental step in the transition of tumors from a dormant state to a malignant one - my words) and inhibit apoptosis or modulate chemo- or radiosensitivity in cancer cells expressing the Epo receptor, raised
the concern that the use of recombinant Epo to increase tissue oxygenation might favour tumour survival and aggressiveness.
Cancer risk associated to doping might be higher than that of patients using hormones/growth factors as replacement therapy, since enormous
doses are taken by the athletes often for a long period of time. Moreover, these substances are often used in combination with other licit or illicit
drugs and this renders almost unpredictable all the possible adverse effects including cancer. Anyway, athletes should be made aware that long-term
treatment with doping agents might increase the risk of developing cancer."

http://www.cenegenicsfoundation.org/library/library_files/Doping_with_growth_hormone__IGF_1__anabolic_steroi ds_or_erythropoietin_is_there_a_cancer_risk.pdf

[rain dogs]

Your paragraph at the end is an example of how information gets misread...


Fixed that for you.

I didn't say Smoking causes testicular Cancer. In fact I wrote "it didn't give him....." My point is, doping isn't in line with healthy living.... just like smoking isn't in line with healthy living.

Smoking is suspected or proven to cause/promote some cancers. If Lance was a chain smoker it would go against his "fight cancer" ideology even if it didn't give HIM cancer, right?

Answer this: Is systematic doping in line with healthy living? I doubt it.

Lance wanted us to believe he won on bread and water, hard work and healthy living... it's a good message. He should have tried that.

[malcolm]

I'm not a doctor, and I'm not pretending to be one. But there appears to be evidence out there that supports this. If people are going to say I lake credibility and I need to provide peer-reviewed studies, then please expect the same of yourselves and refute my points with your own studies which prove otherwise.

"Anabolic steroid and peptide hormones or growth factors are utilized to increase the performance of athletes of professional or amateur sports.
Despite their well-documented adverse effects, the use of some of these agents has significantly grown and has been extended also to non-athletes
with the aim to improve appearance or to counteract ageing. Pre-clinical studies and epidemiological observations in patients with an excess of
hormone production or in patients chronically treated with hormones/growth factors for various pathologies have warned about the potential risk
of cancer development and progression which may be also associated to the use of certain doping agents. Anabolic steroids have been described
to provoke liver tumours; growth hormone or high levels of its mediator insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) have been associated with colon,
breast, and prostate cancers. Actually, IGF-1 promotes cell cycle progression and inhibits apoptosis either by triggering other growth factors or by
interacting with pathways which have an established role in carcinogenesis and cancer promotion. More recently, the finding that erythropoietin
(Epo) may promote angiogenesis (a fundamental step in the transition of tumors from a dormant state to a malignant one - my words) and inhibit apoptosis or modulate chemo- or radiosensitivity in cancer cells expressing the Epo receptor, raised
the concern that the use of recombinant Epo to increase tissue oxygenation might favour tumour survival and aggressiveness.
Cancer risk associated to doping might be higher than that of patients using hormones/growth factors as replacement therapy, since enormous
doses are taken by the athletes often for a long period of time. Moreover, these substances are often used in combination with other licit or illicit
drugs and this renders almost unpredictable all the possible adverse effects including cancer. Anyway, athletes should be made aware that long-term
treatment with doping agents might increase the risk of developing cancer."

http://www.cenegenicsfoundation.org/library/library_files/Doping_with_growth_hormone__IGF_1__anabolic_steroi ds_or_erythropoietin_is_there_a_cancer_risk.pdf

Look lets lay this to rest. You have one paper from 2007 that the only mention of Testicular Ca is a leiomyosarcoma. This is a completely different Ca from what Lance had. He had a common germ cell tumor not a sarcoma.

Steroids have long been associated with not necessarily proven to cause hepatoma/hepatocellular carcinoma/liver ca.

They are bad, they are most likely in the long term bad for you. It wouldn't surprise me if some day in some instances they are proven to cause or induce certain cancers and yes even testicular cancer of the germ cell variety that Lance had.

I just don't think conclusive data exists today to make the assertion that Lances cancer came from PEDs and I suspect he would have gotten it anyway. It is a fairly common cancer, I think the lifetime risk is in the 1 in 250 to 500 range. I don't recall any increased incidence of testicular Ca in the pro peleton, though maybe the study hasn't been done.

Lets just agree to disagree on this point and continue to both agree on the fact that we think his behavior appalling.

[zap]

You KNOW this how?

In fact HGH and T are prescribed every day, here in this country.

With the stated fact, or fact according to you, shows a lack of creditably in what you say.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/28/health/age-youth-treatment-medication/index.html

[jr59]

I'm not a doctor, and I'm not pretending to be one. But there appears to be evidence out there that supports this. If people are going to say I lack credibility and I need to provide peer-reviewed studies, then please expect the same of yourselves and refute my points with your own studies which prove otherwise.

"Anabolic steroid and peptide hormones or growth factors are utilized to increase the performance of athletes of professional or amateur sports.
Despite their well-documented adverse effects, the use of some of these agents has significantly grown and has been extended also to non-athletes
with the aim to improve appearance or to counteract ageing. Pre-clinical studies and epidemiological observations in patients with an excess of
hormone production or in patients chronically treated with hormones/growth factors for various pathologies have warned about the potential risk
of cancer development and progression which may be also associated to the use of certain doping agents. Anabolic steroids have been described
to provoke liver tumours; growth hormone or high levels of its mediator insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) have been associated with colon,
breast, and prostate cancers. Actually, IGF-1 promotes cell cycle progression and inhibits apoptosis either by triggering other growth factors or by
interacting with pathways which have an established role in carcinogenesis and cancer promotion. More recently, the finding that erythropoietin
(Epo) may promote angiogenesis (a fundamental step in the transition of tumors from a dormant state to a malignant one - my words) and inhibit apoptosis or modulate chemo- or radiosensitivity in cancer cells expressing the Epo receptor, raised
the concern that the use of recombinant Epo to increase tissue oxygenation might favour tumour survival and aggressiveness.
Cancer risk associated to doping might be higher than that of patients using hormones/growth factors as replacement therapy, since enormous
doses are taken by the athletes often for a long period of time. Moreover, these substances are often used in combination with other licit or illicit
drugs and this renders almost unpredictable all the possible adverse effects including cancer. Anyway, athletes should be made aware that long-term
treatment with doping agents might increase the risk of developing cancer."

http://www.cenegenicsfoundation.org/library/library_files/Doping_with_growth_hormone__IGF_1__anabolic_steroi ds_or_erythropoietin_is_there_a_cancer_risk.pdf

An a LOT of mights in this, but it is NOT what you stated. Way to deflect.

Here it is; Originally Posted by rain dogs ;
When Steroids, HGH and other PED's are known to reduce life expectancy, increase likelihood of cancers


And I asked a question.

You KNOW this how?

In fact HGH and T are prescribed every day, here in this country.

With the stated fact, or fact according to you, shows a lack of creditably in what you say.

Please do not use opinion as statements of fact.

You want to vilify Lance. That's ok! I get it!

He doped, a LOT. So. He also rode his bike better than anyone of his time.

He used trek and Nike to market a foundation that in turned paid him well.
Sure did!

But please don't say that something that you know little of, reduces life expectancy, and increases likeihood of cancers!

[johnmdesigner]

I had a Daily News reader run me off the road today, get out of his car and take a swing at me. In addition to the usual nasty labels yelled at me (mostly using the F*g word) I was also called a "F*****ng doper.
(A copy of the paper was to be seen on the ledge of his rear window.
Real classy.

[54ny77]

john that sucks. whereabouts?

glad u made it back in one piece.

one of these days we should do an organized ride out in the ct 'burbs. it's pretty nice out here. as in really, really nice. only downside is that i go slow uphill and really need a compact. at first i thought i could muscle a 39, but then....i discovered i was wrong.

scenery and terrain pretty much blows away the monotonous 9w back & forth.

I had a Daily News reader run me off the road today, get out of his car and take a swing at me. In addition to the usual nasty labels yelled at me (mostly using the F*g word) I was also called a "F*****ng doper.
(A copy of the paper was to be seen on the ledge of his rear window.
Real classy.

[johnmdesigner]

john that sucks. whereabouts?

glad u made it back in one piece.

one of these days we should do an organized ride out in the ct 'burbs. it's pretty nice out here. as in really, really nice. only downside is that i go slow uphill and really need a compact. at first i thought i could muscle a 39, but then....i discovered i was wrong.

scenery and terrain pretty much blows away the monotonous 9w back & forth.

Palisade Park (A park!!!)

For those of you that don't live here the NY Post and the Daily News declared "open season" on cyclists in NYC a long time ago.
Support cycling in NY.
Please don't read this trash.

[schneiderrd]

It was testimony that Ferrari was concerned that the drugs he gave Lance gave him Cancer. I don't have time to find dozens of sources but the link between HGH, Steroids and cancer is pretty well documented. Obviously no one, even Dr. Ferrari, will know. But, it's not an unreasonable question. It's very, very possible.

"There are numerous publications in prestigious peer reviewed scientific journals showing that elevated IGF-1 (HGH) levels are strongly associated with major excess risks of colon, prostate, and breast cancers; even minor elevations are associated with up to 7-fold increased risks of breast cancer."

http://www.preventcancer.com/avoidable/breast_cancer/hgh_risks.htm

"Some frequent side effects of testosterone and anabolic steroids are: elevated blood pressure, increase in bad cholesterol, severe acne, baldness, structural changes in the heart, liver and kidney damage, development of female breast tissue, sexual dysfunction, infertility, shrinking testicles, prostate enlargement, aggression and depression, masculinization in women, increase of body hair, and in extreme cases congestive heart failure, heart attacks, sudden cardiac death, and liver, prostate or kidney cancer."

http://www.true-natural-bodybuilding.com/steroids.html

Steroids are cancer promoters for both liver and kidney cancer. Oral steroids are particularly implicated. In the past few years, 14 athletes taking anabolic steroids have had hepatocellular (liver) cancer.

All were on oral steroids. All anabolic steroids are based on testosterone.

http://www.personaltrainertoday.com/anabolic-steroids-how-dangerous-are-they

I'm sure you could find more since that took me about 2 minutes.

I thought Armstrong had Testicular cancer.

[BumbleBeeDave]

I had a Daily News reader run me off the road today, get out of his car and take a swing at me. In addition to the usual nasty labels yelled at me (mostly using the F*g word) I was also called a "F*****ng doper.
(A copy of the paper was to be seen on the ledge of his rear window.
Real classy.

This IS you wearing your special "sarcasm helmet" . . . right? :rolleyes:

BBD

[johnmdesigner]

This IS you wearing your special "sarcasm helmet" . . . right? :rolleyes:

BBD

Get out your bible bub, I'll swear it in court.

[54ny77]

River Rd.?

Palisade Park (A park!!!)

For those of you that don't live here the NY Post and the Daily News declared "open season" on cyclists in NYC a long time ago.
Support cycling in NY.
Please don't read this trash.

[johnmdesigner]

River Rd.?

Yup.

[54ny77]

Damn.

That sucks.

[rain dogs]

:confused:

I'm out.

[jimcav]

You KNOW this how?

In fact HGH and T are prescribed every day, here in this country.

With the stated fact, or fact according to you, shows a lack of creditably in what you say.
you are arguing about apples and oranges.
Go to PUBMED and research. Read articles on the health outcomes of the east german athletes--they have tried to sue their government and sports bodies because of adverse health effects. There are numebrous published reports of helath consequences of steroids and other PEDS--from hyperviscosity in EPO and steroids (raisng hematorcrit), hypogonadotropinsim, infertility, liver damage, heart damage, etc . Prescribed HGH and T SHOULD be prescriptions to REPLACE that lost do to real medical conditions of insufficiency. That is not even close to doping for SUPRA-physiologic purposes.

[jpw]

Nike - just dope it