Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Does Armstrong have a medical "right" to take testosterone?
97 views
Skip to first unread message
Friar Broccoli
Oct 22, 2012, 9:42:03 AM10/22/12
to
It is my understanding that Armstrong had his testicles removed as a
result of his cancer. That (I presume) would reduce his natural
production of the steroid testosterone. Thus, he should have the
medical right to replace the missing testosterone.
I have never heard this discussed.
Does anybody here *know* anything about this?
--
Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
I consider ALL arguments in support of my views
Message has been deleted
Friar Broccoli
Oct 23, 2012, 9:53:59 AM10/23/12
to
On 22 Oct 2012 16:46:47 GMT, nmp <add...@is.invalid> wrote:
>Friar Broccoli:
>It is public knowledge that he had *one* testicle removed. We must assume
>the remaining testicle is still functional. Thus there would be no need
>for testosterone replacement therapy.
I had thought he'd lost both, but:
Seems to me that one testicle would be able to supply testosterone at
only slightly above half the *rate* of two - a huge disadvantage if he's
riding continuously for 20 days, since he'd naturally produce half as
much as everybody else and testosterone improves the speed of recovery
from exertion.
I know that even at 62 I produce a lot of testosterone during/after a
long ride.
>Also, the way Armstrong took testosterone according to the USADA report
>(right before or even during races) does not suggest he used it as
>replacement therapy. He used it as a performance enhancer. His teammates
>also took it, and none of them (that we know of) are missing any
>testicles.
Not suggesting that he didn't go way overboard, only that his personal
situation was completely hopeless without the "supplement".
>Friar Broccoli:
>
>> It is my understanding that Armstrong had his testicles removed as a
>> result of his cancer. That (I presume) would reduce his natural
>> production of the steroid testosterone. Thus, he should have the
>> medical right to replace the missing testosterone.
>>
>> I have never heard this discussed.
>> Does anybody here *know* anything about this?
.
>> It is my understanding that Armstrong had his testicles removed as a
>> result of his cancer. That (I presume) would reduce his natural
>> production of the steroid testosterone. Thus, he should have the
>> medical right to replace the missing testosterone.
>>
>> I have never heard this discussed.
>> Does anybody here *know* anything about this?
>It is public knowledge that he had *one* testicle removed. We must assume
>the remaining testicle is still functional. Thus there would be no need
>for testosterone replacement therapy.
I had thought he'd lost both, but:
Seems to me that one testicle would be able to supply testosterone at
only slightly above half the *rate* of two - a huge disadvantage if he's
riding continuously for 20 days, since he'd naturally produce half as
much as everybody else and testosterone improves the speed of recovery
from exertion.
I know that even at 62 I produce a lot of testosterone during/after a
long ride.
>Also, the way Armstrong took testosterone according to the USADA report
>(right before or even during races) does not suggest he used it as
>replacement therapy. He used it as a performance enhancer. His teammates
>also took it, and none of them (that we know of) are missing any
>testicles.
Not suggesting that he didn't go way overboard, only that his personal
situation was completely hopeless without the "supplement".
Steve Freides
Oct 23, 2012, 11:14:11 AM10/23/12
to
Friar Broccoli wrote:
> I know that even at 62 I produce a lot of testosterone during/after a
> long ride.
Fascinating.
> I know that even at 62 I produce a lot of testosterone during/after a
> long ride.
-S-
Uncle Dave
Oct 23, 2012, 11:53:06 AM10/23/12
to
On 22/10/2012 17:46, nmp wrote:
> Friar Broccoli:
Bruyneel has two, but very small,
Pat, he's just a twat
But Heinz Verbruggen has no balls at all...
<boom tish>
I thenk yew I thenk yew. I'm here all week missus...
UD
> Friar Broccoli:
>
>> It is my understanding that Armstrong had his testicles removed as a
>> result of his cancer. That (I presume) would reduce his natural
>> production of the steroid testosterone. Thus, he should have the
>> medical right to replace the missing testosterone.
>>
>> I have never heard this discussed.
>> Does anybody here *know* anything about this?
>
>> It is my understanding that Armstrong had his testicles removed as a
>> result of his cancer. That (I presume) would reduce his natural
>> production of the steroid testosterone. Thus, he should have the
>> medical right to replace the missing testosterone.
>>
>> I have never heard this discussed.
>> Does anybody here *know* anything about this?
>
> It is public knowledge that he had *one* testicle removed.
Armstrong, he only has one ball
Bruyneel has two, but very small,
Pat, he's just a twat
But Heinz Verbruggen has no balls at all...
<boom tish>
I thenk yew I thenk yew. I'm here all week missus...
UD
Message has been deleted
Friar Broccoli
Oct 23, 2012, 1:49:54 PM10/23/12
to
On 23 Oct 2012 16:37:40 GMT, nmp <add...@is.invalid> wrote:
>Friar Broccoli:
>> nmp:
>Friar Broccoli:
>>>Friar Broccoli:
>
>>>> It is my understanding that Armstrong had his testicles removed as a
>>>> result of his cancer. That (I presume) would reduce his natural
>>>> production of the steroid testosterone. Thus, he should have the
>>>> medical right to replace the missing testosterone.
>>>>
>>>> I have never heard this discussed.
>>>> Does anybody here *know* anything about this?
>>
>
>>>> It is my understanding that Armstrong had his testicles removed as a
>>>> result of his cancer. That (I presume) would reduce his natural
>>>> production of the steroid testosterone. Thus, he should have the
>>>> medical right to replace the missing testosterone.
>>>>
>>>> I have never heard this discussed.
>>>> Does anybody here *know* anything about this?
>>
>>>It is public knowledge that he had *one* testicle removed. We must
>>>assume the remaining testicle is still functional. Thus there would be
>>>no need for testosterone replacement therapy.
>>
>> I had thought he'd lost both, but:
>>
>> Seems to me that one testicle would be able to supply testosterone at
>> only slightly above half the *rate* of two
.
>>>assume the remaining testicle is still functional. Thus there would be
>>>no need for testosterone replacement therapy.
>>
>> I had thought he'd lost both, but:
>>
>> Seems to me that one testicle would be able to supply testosterone at
>> only slightly above half the *rate* of two
>That's not generally true. Of course it varies from one case to the next,
>but usually one testicle is enough to produce all the testosterone a man
>needs. It's almost as if we have two of them for a reason.
We are not dealing with a general situation. One testicle might be
enough for me, but be completely inadequate for an elite athlete.
>
>> - a huge disadvantage if he's
>> riding continuously for 20 days, since he'd naturally produce half as
>> much as everybody else and testosterone improves the speed of recovery
>> from exertion.
>>
>> I know that even at 62 I produce a lot of testosterone during/after a
>> long ride.
>>
>>>Also, the way Armstrong took testosterone according to the USADA report
>>>(right before or even during races) does not suggest he used it as
>>>replacement therapy. He used it as a performance enhancer. His teammates
>>>also took it, and none of them (that we know of) are missing any
>>>testicles.
>>
>> Not suggesting that he didn't go way overboard, only that his personal
>> situation was completely hopeless without the "supplement".
>
>According to witnesses quoted by the USADA report he was already using
>(or experimenting with) testosterone (and other assorted medicaments)
>before he got cancer.
>
>Armstrong using testosterone in cycling has absolutely nothing to do with
>his cancer or his missing gonad. There isn't even a link, let alone a
>justification.
Perhaps.
Friar Broccoli
Oct 23, 2012, 1:52:39 PM10/23/12
to
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 11:14:11 -0400, "Steve Freides" <st...@kbnj.com>
wrote:
>Friar Broccoli wrote:
>
>> I know that even at 62 I produce a lot of testosterone during/after a
>> long ride.
.
>Fascinating.
>
>-S-
Well boy - Yeer one u them *GIRLY* men? U got a different expereec?
wrote:
>Friar Broccoli wrote:
>
>> I know that even at 62 I produce a lot of testosterone during/after a
>> long ride.
>Fascinating.
>
>-S-
Well boy - Yeer one u them *GIRLY* men? U got a different expereec?
Steve Freides
Oct 23, 2012, 3:12:41 PM10/23/12
to
Friar Broccoli wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 11:14:11 -0400, "Steve Freides" <st...@kbnj.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Friar Broccoli wrote:
>>
>>> I know that even at 62 I produce a lot of testosterone during/after
>>> a long ride.
>
> .
>
>> Fascinating.
>>
>> -S-
>
> Well boy - Yeer one u them *GIRLY* men? U got a different expereec?
I'm trying to figure out how you measure your testosterone during/after
> On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 11:14:11 -0400, "Steve Freides" <st...@kbnj.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Friar Broccoli wrote:
>>
>>> I know that even at 62 I produce a lot of testosterone during/after
>>> a long ride.
>
> .
>
>> Fascinating.
>>
>> -S-
>
> Well boy - Yeer one u them *GIRLY* men? U got a different expereec?
a long ride. Or is this the sort of "the wife knows what that look in
my eye means when I come back from a long day in the saddle" sort of
things?
Is the conversation giving anyone else the creeps?
-S-
thirty-six
Oct 23, 2012, 4:34:39 PM10/23/12
to
On 23 Oct, 14:53, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 22 Oct 2012 16:46:47 GMT, nmp <addr...@is.invalid> wrote:
>
> >Friar Broccoli:
>
> >> It is my understanding that Armstrong had his testicles removed as a
> >> result of his cancer. That (I presume) would reduce his natural
> >> production of the steroid testosterone. Thus, he should have the
> >> medical right to replace the missing testosterone.
>
> >> I have never heard this discussed.
> >> Does anybody here *know* anything about this?
>
> .
>
> >It is public knowledge that he had *one* testicle removed. We must assume
> >the remaining testicle is still functional. Thus there would be no need
> >for testosterone replacement therapy.
>
> I had thought he'd lost both, but:
>
> Seems to me that one testicle would be able to supply testosterone at
> only slightly above half the *rate* of two - a huge disadvantage if he's
> riding continuously for 20 days, since he'd naturally produce half as
> much as everybody else and testosterone improves the speed of recovery
> from exertion.
>
> I know that even at 62 I produce a lot of testosterone during/after a
> long ride.
I suppose that watching a hard ride might help the softies.
>
> >Friar Broccoli:
>
> >> It is my understanding that Armstrong had his testicles removed as a
> >> result of his cancer. That (I presume) would reduce his natural
> >> production of the steroid testosterone. Thus, he should have the
> >> medical right to replace the missing testosterone.
>
> >> I have never heard this discussed.
> >> Does anybody here *know* anything about this?
>
> .
>
> >It is public knowledge that he had *one* testicle removed. We must assume
> >the remaining testicle is still functional. Thus there would be no need
> >for testosterone replacement therapy.
>
> I had thought he'd lost both, but:
>
> Seems to me that one testicle would be able to supply testosterone at
> only slightly above half the *rate* of two - a huge disadvantage if he's
> riding continuously for 20 days, since he'd naturally produce half as
> much as everybody else and testosterone improves the speed of recovery
> from exertion.
>
> I know that even at 62 I produce a lot of testosterone during/after a
> long ride.
thirty-six
Oct 23, 2012, 4:42:06 PM10/23/12
to
On 23 Oct, 17:38, nmp <addr...@is.invalid> wrote:
> Friar Broccoli:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > nmp:
> Friar Broccoli:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>Friar Broccoli:
> >>> It is my understanding that Armstrong had his testicles removed as a
> >>> result of his cancer. That (I presume) would reduce his natural
> >>> production of the steroid testosterone. Thus, he should have the
> >>> medical right to replace the missing testosterone.
>
> >>> I have never heard this discussed.
> >>> Does anybody here *know* anything about this?
>
> >>> It is my understanding that Armstrong had his testicles removed as a
> >>> result of his cancer. That (I presume) would reduce his natural
> >>> production of the steroid testosterone. Thus, he should have the
> >>> medical right to replace the missing testosterone.
>
> >>> I have never heard this discussed.
> >>> Does anybody here *know* anything about this?
>
> >>It is public knowledge that he had *one* testicle removed. We must
> >>assume the remaining testicle is still functional. Thus there would be
> >>no need for testosterone replacement therapy.
>
> > I had thought he'd lost both, but:
>
> > Seems to me that one testicle would be able to supply testosterone at
> > only slightly above half the *rate* of two
>
> >>assume the remaining testicle is still functional. Thus there would be
> >>no need for testosterone replacement therapy.
>
> > I had thought he'd lost both, but:
>
> > Seems to me that one testicle would be able to supply testosterone at
> > only slightly above half the *rate* of two
>
> That's not generally true. Of course it varies from one case to the next,
> but usually one testicle is enough to produce all the testosterone a man
> needs. It's almost as if we have two of them for a reason.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> but usually one testicle is enough to produce all the testosterone a man
> needs. It's almost as if we have two of them for a reason.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > - a huge disadvantage if he's
> > riding continuously for 20 days, since he'd naturally produce half as
> > much as everybody else and testosterone improves the speed of recovery
> > from exertion.
>
> > I know that even at 62 I produce a lot of testosterone during/after a
> > long ride.
>
> >>Also, the way Armstrong took testosterone according to the USADA report
> >>(right before or even during races) does not suggest he used it as
> >>replacement therapy. He used it as a performance enhancer. His teammates
> >>also took it, and none of them (that we know of) are missing any
> >>testicles.
>
> > Not suggesting that he didn't go way overboard, only that his personal
> > situation was completely hopeless without the "supplement".
>
> > riding continuously for 20 days, since he'd naturally produce half as
> > much as everybody else and testosterone improves the speed of recovery
> > from exertion.
>
> > I know that even at 62 I produce a lot of testosterone during/after a
> > long ride.
>
> >>Also, the way Armstrong took testosterone according to the USADA report
> >>(right before or even during races) does not suggest he used it as
> >>replacement therapy. He used it as a performance enhancer. His teammates
> >>also took it, and none of them (that we know of) are missing any
> >>testicles.
>
> > Not suggesting that he didn't go way overboard, only that his personal
> > situation was completely hopeless without the "supplement".
>
> According to witnesses quoted by the USADA report he was already using
> (or experimenting with) testosterone (and other assorted medicaments)
> before he got cancer.
A cancer diagnosis is the work of man, one does not acquire it, it is
> (or experimenting with) testosterone (and other assorted medicaments)
> before he got cancer.
a condition recognised by medical doctors as a cash-cow. No doubt
that he was playing god by dosing his body with hormone disrupting
chemicals which initiated some tumour and he thought to benefit and
sought out a diagnosis of a feared "disease".
Mower Man
Oct 23, 2012, 4:58:02 PM10/23/12
to
the point of use" medical system thank God.
> No doubt
> that he was playing god by dosing his body with hormone disrupting
> chemicals which initiated some tumour and he thought to benefit and
> sought out a diagnosis of a feared "disease".
causes of cancer? I write as the husband of a wonderful woman who had
bowel cancer over two years ago. Who has had some 6 "clear" scans since
- all free under the brilliant UK NHS - and also as someone who lost a
great friend earlier just today who having had the same bowel cancer
wasn't reminded by his private med. insurer to attend check ups. Great, not.
There is no evidence to suggest that LA got cancer via "disrupting
chemicals". Any more than my wife got it by anything either. Shit
happens, believe me, and then, btw, you die.
>> Armstrong using testosterone in cycling has absolutely nothing to do with
>> his cancer or his missing gonad. There isn't even a link, let alone a
>> justification.
I've wrongly attributed a response to anyone.
--
Chris
'Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it
every six months.'
(Oscar Wilde.)
thirty-six
Oct 23, 2012, 6:30:01 PM10/23/12
to
>
> > No doubt
> > that he was playing god by dosing his body with hormone disrupting
> > chemicals which initiated some tumour and he thought to benefit and
> > sought out a diagnosis of a feared "disease".
>
> How much do you know about cancer and possible (I stress "possible")
> causes of cancer?
start of a tumour though is the inability of the body to effect
lymphatic flow. This may lead to cancer as toxins are not rid from
the affected area.
> I write as the husband of a wonderful woman who had
> bowel cancer over two years ago. Who has had some 6 "clear" scans since
> - all free under the brilliant UK NHS - and also as someone who lost a
> great friend earlier just today who having had the same bowel cancer
> wasn't reminded by his private med. insurer to attend check ups. Great, not.
not receive the attention to eradicate the tumours which would also
have effected an eradication of the cellular growth labelled by
medical doctors as cancer.
>
> There is no evidence to suggest that LA got cancer via "disrupting
> chemicals". Any more than my wife got it by anything either. Shit
> happens, believe me, and then, btw, you die.
tumours. The surgeon's answer of cutting out the lymphatic duct that
contains the tumour means there is no duct to drain the toxins from
the area it serves. The bowel is the dumping area for acids, minerals
and other waste, including protein from all areas of the body. The
flow of acidic lymph into the bowel should be encouraged by providing
an alkalising diet on a daily basis.
The medical industry is founded on lies. Further lies are told to
support the founding. The key to health is supporting the proper
function of the lymphatic system, it is not in the interest of medical
doctors and hospitals for you to know this.
data...@yahoo.com
Oct 24, 2012, 9:04:45 AM10/24/12
to
I DUNNO....search the rules for 'medical right.' Could be rules state riders have 'no rights' unless explicitly granted.
thirty-six
Oct 24, 2012, 9:46:42 AM10/24/12
to
On 24 Oct, 14:04, datak...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I DUNNO....search the rules for 'medical right.' Could be rules state riders have 'no rights' unless explicitly granted.
The rules of racing discourage the use of medical intervention, yet
> I DUNNO....search the rules for 'medical right.' Could be rules state riders have 'no rights' unless explicitly granted.
riders have for a long time generally ignored this with "excusable"
medically diagnosed conditions. Ultimately it's commerce which
demands that riders race when unfit but the greed within an individual
rider may be difficult to hide.
Breeder
Oct 24, 2012, 10:27:03 PM10/24/12
to
On Oct 22, 9:46 am, nmp <addr...@is.invalid> wrote:
> Friar Broccoli:
>
> Friar Broccoli:
>
> > It is my understanding that Armstrong had his testicles removed as a
> > result of his cancer. That (I presume) would reduce his natural
> > production of the steroid testosterone. Thus, he should have the
> > medical right to replace the missing testosterone.
>
> > I have never heard this discussed.
> > Does anybody here *know* anything about this?
>
> > result of his cancer. That (I presume) would reduce his natural
> > production of the steroid testosterone. Thus, he should have the
> > medical right to replace the missing testosterone.
>
> > I have never heard this discussed.
> > Does anybody here *know* anything about this?
>
> It is public knowledge that he had *one* testicle removed. We must assume
> the remaining testicle is still functional. Thus there would be no need
> for testosterone replacement therapy.
>
It depends. Many men in their thirties have low testosterone (below
> the remaining testicle is still functional. Thus there would be no need
> for testosterone replacement therapy.
>
300, generally, is the clinical line, although "optimal" testosterone
for that age range is over 500) with two testicles, either as a result
of primary hypogonadism (a problem with the testicles themselves),
secondary (a problem with the brain or some non-ball process), or
mixed. LA already stated in an interview with Larry King during his
Tour winning days (perhaps available on Youtube) that he has slightly
low T, yet couldn't do anything about it until he retired. I assume
that admission about having low T is true; that he expected viewers to
believe that a man with low T could win the Tour is remarkable--low
testosterone would lower hematocrit and reduce recovery from exercise;
you are not going to win the Tour naturally with low T (relative to
your peers--endurance training and racing does lower testosterone).
Some sports now allow therapeutic exemptions for testosterone
replacement--obviously not cycling in LA's days...
Friar Broccoli
Oct 27, 2012, 10:55:04 PM10/27/12
to
On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 19:27:03 -0700 (PDT), Breeder <with...@aol.com>
wrote:
Thanks for this substantial information.
wrote:
0 new messages