Lafferty was totally fucking wrong about Lance getting arrested in France!
Anton Berlin
B. Lafferty
> Looks like it will happen when he gets back to Texass, Amerika.
Actually, that was Lemond's prediction which, sadly, has not come true.
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:x7ydndD0GaJbq6PR...@giganews.com...
> On 7/14/2010 6:06 PM, Anton Berlin wrote:
>> Looks like it will happen when he gets back to Texass, Amerika.
>
> Actually, that was Lemond's prediction which, sadly, has not come true.
Why, aside from apparently satisfying a personal vendetta, is it sad?
If the point to participating in RBR is simply entertainment and to perfect
skills at polarizing issues and throwing gasoline on them, then you're a
rock star here.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
B. Lafferty
Sad because, IMO, Lance has been a fraud for years. Sad because, IMO,
he deserves to sit in a French jail being interrogated for a couple of
weeks. Sad because of all the cancer victims, survivors and their
families who looked up to a lying piece of shit. Sad because of all his
attacks on people, like Emma O'Reilly, Betsy Andreau, the Dutch soigneur
and others who he portrayed as disgruntled former employees or crazies
attacking their character and veracity. Sad because of his insults,
pressure and derision directed at pro riders who dared to speak out
about drugs in the peloton (Bassons, Simeoni for example). Sad for what
his kids are going to learn about who and what their father really is.
Sad for all the media people he used (like Sally Jenkins) to build his
fake myth.
--D-y
Tell us more, Brian. What about those "insults"?
Just one of "the children" here--
--D-y
Keith
wrote:
>> If the point to participating in RBR is simply entertainment and to
>> perfect skills at polarizing issues and throwing gasoline on them, then
>> you're a rock star here.
>>
>> --Mike Jacoubowsky
>> Chain Reaction Bicycles
>> www.ChainReaction.com
>> Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
>
>Sad because, IMO, Lance has been a fraud for years. Sad because, IMO,
>he deserves to sit in a French jail being interrogated for a couple of
>weeks. Sad because of all the cancer victims, survivors and their
>families who looked up to a lying piece of shit. Sad because of all his
>attacks on people, like Emma O'Reilly, Betsy Andreau, the Dutch soigneur
>and others who he portrayed as disgruntled former employees or crazies
>attacking their character and veracity. Sad because of his insults,
>pressure and derision directed at pro riders who dared to speak out
>about drugs in the peloton (Bassons, Simeoni for example). Sad for what
>his kids are going to learn about who and what their father really is.
>Sad for all the media people he used (like Sally Jenkins) to build his
>fake myth.
Quite right and also sad because he destroyed the image of cycling in
the process and pushed more talented cyclists (in his own words) to
the brink. After the 1998 Festina bust, things had improved....until
other teams realized this recently useless GT rider was getting away
with it...backdated prescriptions (1999 TdF positive) and of course
all the rest
Keith
wrote:
>> Sad because, IMO, Lance has been a fraud for years. Sad because, IMO,
>> he deserves to sit in a French jail being interrogated for a couple of
>> weeks. Sad because of all the cancer victims, survivors and their
>> families who looked up to a lying piece of shit. Sad because of all his
>> attacks on people, like Emma O'Reilly, Betsy Andreau, the Dutch soigneur
>> and others who he portrayed as disgruntled former employees or crazies
>> attacking their character and veracity. Sad because of his insults,
>> pressure and derision directed at pro riders who dared to speak out
>> about drugs in the peloton (Bassons, Simeoni for example). Sad for what
>> his kids are going to learn about who and what their father really is.
>> Sad for all the media people he used (like Sally Jenkins) to build his
>> fake myth.
>
>Tell us more, Brian. What about those "insults"?
>Just one of "the children" here--
>--D-y
So you're ok with all the rest, coming to your senses, eh ?
--D-y
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 16:38:49 -0700 (PDT), --D-y <dustoyev...@mac.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Sad because, IMO, Lance has been a fraud for years. ÊSad because, IMO,
> >> he deserves to sit in a French jail being interrogated for a couple of
> >> families who looked up to a lying piece of shit. Sad because of all his
> >> attacks on people, like Emma O'Reilly, Betsy Andreau, the Dutch soigneur
> >> and others who he portrayed as disgruntled former employees or crazies
> >> attacking their character and veracity. Sad because of his insults,
> >> pressure and derision directed at pro riders who dared to speak out
> >> about drugs in the peloton (Bassons, Simeoni for example). Sad for what
> >> his kids are going to learn about who and what their father really is.
> >> Sad for all the media people he used (like Sally Jenkins) to build his
> >> fake myth.
>
> >Tell us more, Brian. What about those "insults"?
> >Just one of "the children" here--
> >--D-y
>
> So you're ok with all the rest, coming to your senses, eh ?
Nope. Just pointing out an item on the goose/gander continuum.
So, Keith, when was racing clean, again? Weren't you the guy
complaining about the "stolen years" that Lance Armstrong took from
you? Maybe that was someone else and if so, I apologize. Even though
they were all doping.
--D-y
derf...@gmail.com
> Sad because, IMO, Lance has been a fraud for years. Sad because, IMO,
> he deserves to sit in a French jail being interrogated for a couple of
> weeks. Sad because of all the cancer victims, survivors and their
> families who looked up to a lying piece of shit. Sad because of all his
> attacks on people, like Emma O'Reilly, Betsy Andreau, the Dutch soigneur
> and others who he portrayed as disgruntled former employees or crazies
> attacking their character and veracity. Sad because of his insults,
> pressure and derision directed at pro riders who dared to speak out
> about drugs in the peloton (Bassons, Simeoni for example). Sad for what
> his kids are going to learn about who and what their father really is.
> Sad for all the media people he used (like Sally Jenkins) to build his
> fake myth.
Do you really think anyone believes that you actually believe that
shite?
RicodJour
> > "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>
> >>> Looks like it will happen when he gets back to Texass, Amerika.
>
> >> Actually, that was Lemond's prediction which, sadly, has not come true.
>
> > Why, aside from apparently satisfying a personal vendetta, is it sad?
>
> > If the point to participating in RBR is simply entertainment and to
> > perfect skills at polarizing issues and throwing gasoline on them, then
> > you're a rock star here.
>
>
> he deserves to sit in a French jail being interrogated for a couple of
> weeks. Sad because of all the cancer victims, survivors and their
> families who looked up to a lying piece of shit.
Right. The people he's helped should only look up to saints. They're
plentiful, so why not?
What a maroon.
R
Mike Jacoubowsky
I see. And only in a French jail would your goal of
vindication/retribution/whatever be viable?
Where were you when Landis confessed to being a fraud to all those people he
took money from? A direct and confessed case of fraud. Shouldn't that be
enough to put someone in jail? Or at least be worthy of scorn? But no, he's
not "the man" the guy that everybody gets all hot & bothered about each
July.
I really don't get it. There's a lot to be discussed regarding how the
various courts will be approaching the various accusations, a lot some of us
can learn from. And then, if everything turns out the way you think it will
(or should), great, you can state your piece about how sad it is that, for
years, a fraud was perpetuated and people victimized etc. But it seems like
you'd rather ignore or have no faith in due process? If so, tell us why.
You, more than most anyone else here, have extensive experience in that
area.
DirtRoadie
wrote:
>There's a lot to be discussed regarding how the
> various courts will be approaching the various accusations, a lot some of us
> can learn from.
And there is actually some bike racing still taking place - as a
matter of fact, IT'S JULY!
Wouldn't it be cool to have a newsgroup that is dedicated to
bicycle.racing?
I think that would be a far more interesting theme than having one or
two participants hijack the group in order to bicker about their
personal biases.
DR
Scott
destroyed the image of cycling??? Are you kidding me? I'd guess that
easily over 3/4 of the entire population of the US knows about cycling
now solely because of LA. If that's destruction of the image of
cycling, we need more of it. Oh, yeah... dumbass.
Henry
wrote:
don't feed the troll. Do it again and I'll reach through the screen
and bitch-slap you
Henry
don't feed the troll. Do it again and I'll reach through the screen
and bitch-slap you
Henry
>
> - Show quoted text -
Henry
don't feed the troll. Do it again and I'll reach through the screen
and bitch-slap you
GoneBeforeMyTime
I think Ryan gave his say one time about all the good Lance has done. I
suppose that is something along the lines of good works can cover a
multitude of sins. If he doped then yeah, this is certainly going to be the
biggest doping scandal in cycling history. I'm not sure how much all the
good he has done covers all the bad, if it's true what Landis claims peeling
back the layers of the onion. The depth, scale and scope of this fiasco
could be staggering if one could even comprehend how many lives it's
effected and the massive marketing machine behind it. There is certainly a
lot that could be argued, cause Lance is such a huge fish, and if he cheated
in most of those tours, plus using that money to further his Science of
Lance as a double edge, then that seems pretty grevious I must admit. I
always thought Lance was clean for so many years, but if he cheated it's
likely to be proven sooner or later.
H. Fred Kveck
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
> people victimized etc.
I still want to know how the people that LAF helped were "victimized" if it is
>>>proven<<< that LANCE was a doper (and not just the "proof" of Laff@me's wishful
thinking about French jail cells). Would it mean that any cancer that they may have
had go into remission is, in fact, not in remission, or what?
B. Lafferty
A French interrogation simply because he's in France and those
proceedings are reported to be so much fun.
>
> Where were you when Landis confessed to being a fraud to all those
> people he took money from? A direct and confessed case of fraud.
> Shouldn't that be enough to put someone in jail? Or at least be worthy
> of scorn? But no, he's not "the man" the guy that everybody gets all hot
> & bothered about each July.
Ah, a different question. Landis will have to answer to that fraud. He
will probably plead guilty to some or all that he's done in return for
his testimony and any other evidence he can or will supply. I expect he
may do some short jail time, maybe just probation. Restitution should
also be part of the deal. Landis should not, and will not, get a pass.
>
> I really don't get it. There's a lot to be discussed regarding how the
> various courts will be approaching the various accusations, a lot some
> of us can learn from. And then, if everything turns out the way you
> think it will (or should), great, you can state your piece about how sad
> it is that, for years, a fraud was perpetuated and people victimized
> etc. But it seems like you'd rather ignore or have no faith in due
> process? If so, tell us why. You, more than most anyone else here, have
> extensive experience in that area.
Having just gone through nearly two years of litigation in Federal
courts with Susan Polgar, I can tell you that I've very much lost faith
in the ability of our judges and court system to produce decisions on
the merits in a time frame that doesn't cost a fortune to the parties.
I'm liking the continental justice systems more and more.
B. Lafferty
Fred Flintstein
>
> I think Ryan gave his say one time about all the good Lance has done. I
> suppose that is something along the lines of good works can cover a
> multitude of sins. If he doped then yeah, this is certainly going to be the
> biggest doping scandal in cycling history. I'm not sure how much all the
> good he has done covers all the bad, if it's true what Landis claims peeling
> back the layers of the onion. The depth, scale and scope of this fiasco
> could be staggering if one could even comprehend how many lives it's
> effected and the massive marketing machine behind it. There is certainly a
> lot that could be argued, cause Lance is such a huge fish, and if he cheated
> in most of those tours, plus using that money to further his Science of
> Lance as a double edge, then that seems pretty grevious I must admit. I
> always thought Lance was clean for so many years, but if he cheated it's
> likely to be proven sooner or later.
Jesus Fucking Christ get a grip.
This isn't a crime against humanity. It's entertainment. It's
a bike race. Nothing more.
Fred Flintstein
Fredmaster of Brainerd
wrote:
You're forgetting all the people who thought they
were cured of cancer who were lied to and once
Jeff Novitzky proves LANCE doped, they'll have
cancer again.
If only Greg Lemond had been rightfully winning the Tour
all those years, nobody would have gotten cancer.
Sincerely,
Greg Lemond
Anton Berlin
>
> - Show quoted text -
+ U+221E
Anton Berlin
Dude - I know that but Lemond doesn't bring the heat nearly as much as
you do. Good evidence that the Lance ball garglers are starting to
choke on the scrotum hairs of truth.
B. Lafferty
GoneBeforeMyTime
Didn't Perryman already clip your wings Einstein?
Amit Ghosh
> Dude - I know that but Lemond doesn't bring the heat nearly as much as
> you do. Good evidence that the Lance ball garglers are starting to
> choke on the scrotum hairs of truth.
dumbass,
most people grow up and stop idealizing athletes or celebrities at
some point - even papai grew out of it.
the sad part is the exploitative nature of the sport. i know i enjoyed
watching hamilton attack on the lead group in the moutains with a
broken collarbone or solo to a stage win in bayonne. a guy like that
should be able to retire and we should be seeing him smiling on the tv
next to hinault or indurain as one of the elder statemen of the sport,
instead he's a broke sad clown.
GoneBeforeMyTime
> On 7/14/2010 11:16 PM, GoneBeforeMyTime wrote:
>>
>> I think Ryan gave his say one time about all the good Lance has
>> done. I suppose that is something along the lines of good works can
>> cover a multitude of sins. If he doped then yeah, this is certainly
>> going to be the biggest doping scandal in cycling history. I'm not
>> sure how much all the good he has done covers all the bad, if it's
>> true what Landis claims peeling back the layers of the onion. The
>> depth, scale and scope of this fiasco could be staggering if one
>> could even comprehend how many lives it's effected and the massive
>> marketing machine behind it. There is certainly a lot that could be
>> argued, cause Lance is such a huge fish, and if he cheated in most
>> of those tours, plus using that money to further his Science of
>> Lance as a double edge, then that seems pretty grevious I must
>> admit. I always thought Lance was clean for so many years, but if he
>> cheated it's likely to be proven sooner or later.
>
> a bike race. Nothing more.
>
> Fred Flintstein
I'm sure this is always fun for the Grand Poobah, most hardened trollmaster
of this group. It' entertainment, but we are not talking about Ricco or some
other wannabe. We are talking about who some people call the greatest tour
rider ever and some even call more then that comparing Lance to surpassing
some of the old great legends. None of those old guys had EPO Einstein.
There is no proof Indurain used it, but the others didn't have access to it.
I'm pretty sure Lemond didn't use it, but he's not a five time winner
either.
To you yeah, so what if he doped, although there is no proof he did yet, but
yeah, what about all those cancer children he visited who see him as a big
hero? They are not hardened kids, but kids who often hang onto sports heroes
almost day by day, and some are completely obsessed wrapping their entire
teenage lives around them. You ever see a teenager's room plastered with
posters of their heroes? Look at all the kids who had cancer and saw Lance
as their hero, and now they will be devastated to find out he's the biggest
fake in the history of cycling, (if it's proven). Most kids are fragile, not
hardened like the Grande Poobah who's been in rbr for 20 years.
There are many problems with this. Bonds, McGuire, etc, those records are
all fake, and Lance's 7 tours are also fake if he cheated by using
EPO+Science to top off the last few tours which pushed over the top of five.
In my opinion, Roger Maris HR record still stands. There will be no 7 tours
in my book, if he is proven to be using EPO all those years. Also it's much
more then entertainment, it's a multi million dollar media machine finely
tuned and fed by Lance and company all these years which shut out the
careers of other riders who never got a fair shot at what Lance had. Ulrich
being Lance's side show.
I base that on using those millions to create the Science of Lance, he got
all those cutting edge companies onboard with the latest cutting edge
secrets. Only Lance had that, and if he used EPO to gain the DOUBLE edge,
EPO+Technology, then he cheated above and beyond what other riders and teams
had at their disposal. It's much more beyond entertainment, it's a huge
media business model, that's big money, big business, not circus weekend
entertainment. When big money is involved, then it can be considered a
serious crime, depending on who did what, who said what, and who got hurt in
the process. Not a one year fling for crying out loud, but a 7 year affair!
That's a big stretch of cycling history. We have no idea all of who was
involved exactly yet, and if the doping agencies were on the take. If
proven, this could turn out to be a huge grievous fraud where even the
doping agencies might be dirty. And yeah, Lemond lost a lot of potential
income to Lance from his post year sales due largely to the Lance mass
marketing machine. If Lance cheated, then dam straight, Lemond got a right
to be pissed about his loss of sales for years now. We are talking about a
whole hell of a lot of money being gained or lost over the years.
However, I see it as as a sad footnote in regards to all the people and
cancer victims who looked up to him as a role model, and will perhaps in
time find out he's could be the biggest fraud in the history of cycling.
That's the way I see it. If Lance is clean, then he still had my utmost
admiration, but if he's found to be dirty, then those records are
meaningless, and he's just another fraud. I'll go as far as to allow or
credit Lance with the Science of Lance cause it was within the rules, but
not EPO+Technology. That's out of line!
However, I don't think this one will end up like the Kennedy shooting. If he
used EPO, I believe we will know with solid evidence, sooner or later.
Frederick the Great
"GoneBeforeMyTime" <Fa...@EuroForums.com> wrote:
I am totally in awe of people who can connect their
inner voice directly to the keyboard. Those school
English composition assignments were a doddle for you.
--
Old Fritz
GoneBeforeMyTime
As if it really matters here jackass.
Fred Flintstein
One of your defining personality characteristics is a complete
inability to accept that you might be wrong about something.
You are the Dunning-Kruger effect brought to life. Here you are
wrong about more than I have the time to point out.
But I am going to address this:
On 7/15/2010 12:55 PM, GoneBeforeMyTime wrote:
>
> To you yeah, so what if he doped, although there is no proof he did yet, but
> yeah, what about all those cancer children he visited who see him as a big
> hero? They are not hardened kids, but kids who often hang onto sports heroes
> almost day by day, and some are completely obsessed wrapping their entire
> teenage lives around them. You ever see a teenager's room plastered with
> posters of their heroes? Look at all the kids who had cancer and saw Lance
> as their hero, and now they will be devastated to find out he's the biggest
> fake in the history of cycling, (if it's proven). Most kids are fragile, not
> hardened like the Grande Poobah who's been in rbr for 20 years.
You don't have anything going on in your life. That leaves a void
that you seek to fill with things that give you comfort. I get that.
A pediatric cancer patient is in the opposite situation. Their lives
are full and overflowing with stuff coming at them from many
directions. The stuff that you think is important to them is not on
the radar screen. Seriously, it is not. There isn't room. Your life
is empty, theirs are overflowing.
Check this out:
http://wjn.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/21/5/600
"Hopefulness and its Characteristics in Adolescents with Cancer"
That comes to mind because I know one of the authors. I'm not really
qualified to judge whether it's top notch work or not. But I do know
that having a sense that you can win the fight is a critical part of
the process. So if Lance shows up at the hospital and convinces kids
that this is a battle they can win, that matters. The stuff that you
think matters... well, it isn't even on the radar screen.
When you look at what livestrong does, you will see things that matter
to cancer patients. The stuff that you think really, really matters,
it doesn't matter. Cancer patients don't have the time or energy for
it.
Trust me on that.
Fred Flintstein
Anton Berlin
actually grifts off of. Look at how much energy and cash is put
towards 'cancer'. Numerous organizations, boards and backoffices
taking a piece of the pie. Liestrong's director takes a healthy $250k
salary on a budget of only $32M a year.
Compare that with the ACS taking in a $1B a year where the CEO takes
1/10th of the comparative salary.
People that want to 'help' cancer patients will find a way without
Lance Armstrongs bullshit charity. All he's done is cut the pie in
smaller pieces added overhead costs and tried to make himself look
good in others and his own twisted self image.
If Lance didn't play with steroids so much at the OTC he never would
have given cancer a 2nd thought. Or had it in the first place more
than likely.
Fred Flintstein
> If Lance didn't play with steroids so much at the OTC he never would
> have given cancer a 2nd thought. Or had it in the first place more
> than likely.
>
Dumbass,
Both of us know a ton of people that take steroids. We may not know
the names because they don't talk about it. But I have no doubt that
we both know a ton of people that dope with steroids.
If the relationship between steroids and cancer was as strong as
you think it is, cancer would be epidemic. Dumbass.
Fred Flintstein
blazing_saddles
wrote:
"more than likely"
Scott
Doesn't it ever occur to you to look at facts before you spew???
There is no established link whatsoever between steroid use and
testicular cancer.
Now that you know that, perhaps you could adjust your incessant
bashing to a different approach, one that's based on something that
might actually happen. I'm just sayin'.
Anton Berlin
> On Jul 15, 4:42 pm, Anton Berlin <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Cancer charity or humanitarian work is a zero sum game that Armstrong
> > actually grifts off of. Look at how much energy and cash is put
> > towards 'cancer'. Numerous organizations, boards and backoffices
> > taking a piece of the pie. Liestrong's director takes a healthy $250k
> > salary on a budget of only $32M a year.
>
> > Compare that with the ACS taking in a $1B a year where the CEO takes
> > 1/10th of the comparative salary.
>
> > People that want to 'help' cancer patients will find a way without
> > Lance Armstrongs bullshit charity. All he's done is cut the pie in
> > smaller pieces added overhead costs and tried to make himself look
> > good in others and his own twisted self image.
>
> > If Lance didn't play with steroids so much at the OTC he never would
> > have given cancer a 2nd thought. Or had it in the first place more
> > than likely.
>
> Doesn't it ever occur to you to look at facts before you spew???
> There is no established link whatsoever between steroid use and
> testicular cancer.
You really stuck your cock in your mouth, Look around before you write
stupid cunt thoughts.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/01/2078499.htm
Steroids linked to cancer, self harm, birth defects
During the 1970s and 1980s, the former East Germany conducted a state-
sanctioned program administering anabolic steroids to its athletes.
Now the horrific consequences of the doping program are beginning to
emerge.
A study of 52 of the athletes has revealed that not only do they have
serious health issues, but their children have high rates of physical
and mental deformities.
And a quarter of the athletes suffer from cancer.
( a 2005 US study showed that of various cancer patients 20% were
former steroid users but said that more research was needed ) ( a
typical conclusion to get more grant money)
"Supplement use is common and increasing among patients with
testicular cancer. The use of exercise performance-enhancing
supplements was as great as 20%."
http://www.ergo-log.com/teston6.html
Testosterone supplement causes aggressive prostate cancer
http://www.ergo-log.com/prostatecancer.html
Lancet: link between prostate cancer and steroids in bodybuilder
Betty
> Didn't Perryman already clip your wings Einstein?
What a bohr.
Betty
> I am totally in awe of people who can connect their
> inner voice directly to the keyboard. Those school
> English composition assignments were a doddle for you.
Bots connect their inner voice using DMA.
A. Dumas
> Anton Berlin wrote:
>> If Lance didn't play with steroids so much at the OTC he never would
>> have given cancer a 2nd thought. Or had it in the first place more
>> than likely.
>
> the names because they don't talk about it. But I have no doubt that
> we both know a ton of people that dope with steroids.
>
> If the relationship between steroids and cancer was as strong as
> you think it is, cancer would be epidemic. Dumbass.
HGH perhaps, not steroids. Seems intuitively related: cancer = growth,
but I don't think a relation has been established in any study.
Anton Berlin
> HGH perhaps, not steroids. Seems intuitively related: cancer = growth,
> but I don't think a relation has been established in any study.
uhhhh.. see previous post
hgh is strongly linked to accelerating cancers -
the worst thing is the net is full of people touting these things in
the face of reality and ignoring all risks. especially the muscle
heads
Fred Flintstein
Dumbass,
We both know a ton of people that dope with steroids. None of
them do it the way the East Germans did. And certainly no one
at the OTC in Colorado Springs.
I would never say there wasn't a link. I'm saying it isn't as
strong as you are portraying it. If it was then the beaches of
this country would look way different.
Fred Flintstein
A. Dumas
>> HGH perhaps, not steroids. Seems intuitively related: cancer = growth,
>> but I don't think a relation has been established in any study.
>
> uhhhh.. see previous post
>
> hgh is strongly linked to accelerating cancers -
What previous post? Strongly linked where? I want to believe it is but
couldn't find studies.
Scott
Please point out anything in all that info that speaks to the issue of
a link between steroid use and testicular cancer.
Anton Berlin
>
> - Show quoted text -
First I never used 'testicular cancer' I wrote cancer.
"If Lance didn't play with steroids so much at the OTC he never would
have given cancer a 2nd thought."
2nd it's in the post and link given
( a 2005 US study showed that of various cancer patients 20% were
former steroid users but said that more research was needed ) ( a
typical conclusion to get more grant money)
"Supplement use is common and increasing among patients with
testicular cancer. The use of exercise performance-enhancing
supplements was as great as 20%."
3rd, cancer (like fire and jesus) works in mysterious ways, sometimes
the burn pattern makes sense and sometimes the source might have come
from across the room.
Can anyone definitely say that one person's cancer started here and
not there when examining a patient? Not that I am aware of - they
just cut out the offending bits, radiate and chemo the crumbs and hope
for the best.
Frederick the Great
<01649184-7c1b-4f03...@5g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
Anton Berlin <truth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The poison is in the dose. Any toxicologist will tell you this.
The toxicity of a substance is a very non-linear function
of the dose. Each substance has a threshold dose below which
it is not toxic.
--
Old Fritz
Frederick the Great
<f63ca5be-1ce3-4ab4...@u36g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Anton Berlin <truth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 2nd it's in the post and link given
>
> ( a 2005 US study showed that of various cancer patients 20% were
> former steroid users but said that more research was needed ) ( a
> typical conclusion to get more grant money)
>
>
> "Supplement use is common and increasing among patients with
> testicular cancer. The use of exercise performance-enhancing
> supplements was as great as 20%."
What is the rate of PED use in the population?
The population being the at risk for testicular
cancer population.
All of what you bring up are first out of the gate
studies with headline cachet. We have seen this
before. After a while the reason for the correlation emerges.
Hormone replacement therapy.
Breast cancer screening.
Injecting Hg into infants.
Al and Parkinson's disease.
Eat margarine, not butter
because margarine is better for you.
Whoops! Another one bites the dust.
--
Old Fritz
Scott
Yeah, you wrote cancer and not specifically testicular cancer, but
even you have to admit that the reference to never thinking about
cancer if he hadn't done steroids is an implication that his
particular cancer was caused by steroids, which it wasn't. And yes,
people can tell where one person's cancer started. Oncologists do it
all the time.
Face it, you don't like LA, but to perpetuate some bullshit myth that
he got testicular cancer because of PED use, particularly steroids,
while at the OTC or anywhere else, is just stupid and/or
disingenuous. I'm betting it's a bit of both.
Anton Berlin
> In article
> <f63ca5be-1ce3-4ab4-9b34-1511c8ab1...@u36g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Old fritz - I couldn't agree more ! http://www.forkandbottle.com/pantry/butter/images/isigny.gif
Anton Berlin
Scott - you know about Greg Strock and the out of court settlement
Armstrong and Carmichael made?
People respond differently - one gets a suppressed immune system,
another gets testicular cancer, another gets crohns etc etc....
Same drug administered by the same guys and sometimes in the same
room - read up. these and more
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/04/10/60II/main284958.shtml
http://velonews.competitor.com/2006/04/news/six-years-later-strock-case-comes-to-court_9763
Scott
I don't give a happy rat fart about Greg Strock or the settlement from
his case. That is not what you were talking about earlier, and it's
not what I'm talking about now.
The FACT remains there has never been a link shown between steroid use
and testicular cancer. There are plenty of things that do often
result from steroid abuse, but testicular cancer isn't one of them,
and none of the known residuals of steroid use have ever been
exhibited by Armstrong. Well, maybe the overly aggressive asshole
part, but that could just be his personality.
To imply that Armstrong's cancer was because of PED use is complete
and utter nonsense. You've stated that if Armstrong had not done
steroids he would never have given cancer a second thought, which is
your sly way of saying if he'd never done steroids he would not have
gotten cancer. You're wrong. Just admit it and move on. There are
plenty of other reasons for you to dislike him, you don't need to
resort to scandalous BS.
GoneBeforeMyTime
> You don't have anything going on in your life. That leaves a void
> that you seek to fill with things that give you comfort. I get that.
Poobah,
I've probably been to more places worldwide in one year then you have in
your whole entire pathetic existence in rbr. Internet is mobile with laptops
and hookups worldwide almost anywhere in any country. I'm not stuck in Cali
like you think and I don't spend all my off time spewing dribble in rbr like
you. There is no void already having several careers before I even entered
the World Wide Web. I pursue the things I enjoy now, correct, as do most
people. With the number of forums out there, even Kunich finally figured
that one out. Guess you haven't. You need to get out more, like to other
forums since you can't afford to travel and see the world.
Fred Flintstein
You're really thin skinned too.
Fred Flintstein
Frederick the Great
"GoneBeforeMyTime" <Fa...@EuroForums.com> wrote:
With all those credential you are
a prolix, boring, and humorless poster to rbr.
Perhaps in other venues you are a bon vivant.
You need not reply. I just enjoy posting to
a thread with a subject header saying
Lafferty was totally fucking wrong.
--
Old Fritz