Tour De France
Jul 22, 2005 at 3:11 AM Post #61 of 88
Quote:

As far as my speculations go, sorry if I think that it is more than a simple coincidence that the man has testicular cancer and cyclists are known to take drugs and get cancer from them, I guess it really makes more sense to think hes clean and got his cancer from natural causes


Quote from THIS article:

"Ten percent of males diagnosed with testicular cancer give a history of recent trauma to the testicle. It is not thought that the trauma causes the cancer, but rather that it brings an existing tumor to the attention of the patient and physician."

Bike riding is a sport where trauma to the testicles is commonplace. IMO, the above correlation to testicular cancer seems stronger than cyclist drug use.
 
Jul 22, 2005 at 3:45 AM Post #62 of 88
Maybe so, maybe not, like I said, I'm not jumping to conclusions only emitting an opinion which I believe to be the most likely, you're free to believe the contrary if you wish, but as I said I saw the man's eyes during an interview, there is absolutly no doubt in my mind. Wether you believe it or not is fine by me either way
smily_headphones1.gif
And also, its said in that quote that biking didnt cause the cancer, only amphesized the trauma to the point of cancer, meaning that he had to be predisposed to testicular cancer (in other words he needed a tumor beforehand) to actually get it from riding a bike...
 
Jul 22, 2005 at 5:28 AM Post #63 of 88
Quote:

Originally Posted by fogia.4
I myself have used similar drugs for entertainment purposes when I was younger, and I can see the obvious traces such drugs leave on the faces and bodies of cyclists during interviews and the likes.


I've read your posts over like 6 times and this line still has me puzzled. Are you serious that you took performance inhancing drugs like anabolic steroids or human growth hormone for "entertainment purposes". I'm trying to think of anyway that you could get entertainment from that. You and the guys just sit in the basement, get buzzed, and let your muscle size and endurance increase? The only other thing I could think of is that perhaps in France there are some drugs that Lance is accussed of using that we don't hear about here in the USA. If thats true I'd like to know what kind of things they say there.
 
Jul 22, 2005 at 10:54 AM Post #64 of 88
Quote:

Maybe so, maybe not, like I said, I'm not jumping to conclusions only emitting an opinion which I believe to be the most likely, you're free to believe the contrary if you wish, but as I said I saw the man's eyes during an interview, there is absolutly no doubt in my mind.


I understand your point, but since millions of people who do not use steroids get cancer every year, (my younger half/brother was diagnosed with testicular cancer when he was 18 yet never used steroids) I just think perhaps you are jumping to conclusions. It's like saying because someone drinks alcohol sometimes and were involved in a traffic accident ... they must have been driving while under the influence and that's what caused the accident . That's not necessarily the case and in fact in most instances, it isn't the case.

Even if he originally had been using drugs prior to be diagnosed with cancer, one would think that after such a scare and the soul searching which would follow, he wouldn't start back up on them again. It's my understanding that for these "enhancers" to work, they must be taken constantly so it's logical to assume that unless he's completely ignorant of any correlation between steroids and cancer, he's been winning year after year steroid free. After all, according to the site below, he didn't win his first Tour de France until 3 years after the cancer.

http://nike.com/wearyellow/main.html
 
Jul 22, 2005 at 5:11 PM Post #65 of 88
Guys, its not steroids or muscle enhancers im on about, its amphetamines... It's not about how hard or how big but how long and how fast that matters here... endurance is the key.
 
Jul 22, 2005 at 8:18 PM Post #66 of 88
Quote:

Originally Posted by fogia.4
Guys, its not steroids or muscle enhancers im on about, its amphetamines... It's not about how hard or how big but how long and how fast that matters here... endurance is the key.


I've never seen any studies (not even school or politician propaganda) that links amphetamine use in any way to cancer. Not to mention that amphetamines are easy to test for in urine, saliva, and hair.
 
Jul 22, 2005 at 11:20 PM Post #67 of 88
I've probably heard nearly as many Lance Armstrong drug theories as I've heard 9/11 conspiracy theories. NASA drugs, testbed for secret US drug program for the next Olympics, President Bush using big Pharma & government research to help out a fellow Texan, I've heard it all. And like the 9/11 theories, they don't hold any water once you start to look at them in a logical manner.

Lance wins because he's a top rider with the full support of his team. His team is put together, trains, and works with one goal in mind; get Lance the yellow jersey and protect him at all costs. They control the pace, chase down attacks, pace him everywhere, take away time bonuses, and ride themselves to death to get Lance to the finish line in first place. No other team does that. It's all about the team, that's why he wins.
 
Jul 23, 2005 at 12:03 AM Post #68 of 88
I have a question for the people that are more into the cycling sport then me, how many other races does Lance do during a "season" compared to the other riders ?

Just asking since I guess the risk of damage and more wearing and tearing on your body is higher the more races one does during a season I guess couse of the competetive nature of a race.

I`d personlly have a higher amount of respect to a rider that competes in alot of hard races and takes high places ( top 5-10 ) then one that rides very few and win one that is my take on it.

Lance also wins not only couse he is the best overall rider but due to the fact that the post over mentions that the team rides for him all the time.

Other teams might have some riders divided into both the overall position and the sprint competition.
 
Jul 23, 2005 at 12:14 AM Post #69 of 88
As it has been mentioned by aerius above, Lance Armstrong has won the past 6 Tour De France simply because he's the best at what he does and has tremendous support from his teammates in ensuring that he retains the yellow jersey. The theory of Lance taking drugs to enhance his performance and is the reason for his cancer is totally weak. Lance and every rider in the Tour De France are tested numerous times during the race for those enhancment drugs including the drug Erythropoietin (EPO) and he has never been tested positive for any of them including amphetamines. If he was on amphetamines, he would have been caught a long time ago.
 
Jul 23, 2005 at 1:14 AM Post #70 of 88
It's been demonstrated clinically that amphetamines degrade endurance performance, not enhance it. Speed keeps you awake and minimizes fatigue symptoms, but it won't give you more energy per se.
 
Jul 23, 2005 at 11:05 AM Post #73 of 88
I dont know if its exactly amphetamines or something alike, frankly it doesnt really matter, I'll let you peeps dream on, since it seems you're stuck onto your opinions anyway....


GO LANCE ARMSTRONG GO!

biggrin.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top