You could possibly see a mixture of things like platelets, anything related to hematopoeitic stem cells basically. And possibly,
you could return a false positive or negative to various test.

For instance, we're still wondering how a cancer patient (who was also HIV positive) and received a BM transplant, could become
cancer free (expected) and HIV negative (he was given BM from a donor with a specific mutation that is known to make people strongly
-not entirely though- resistant to HIV infection)...we're not sure about the mechanism. But your DNA remains the same :-)

And in CSI, they show you how you can zoom in infinitely on an eye and catch the reflection of someone in it, and see the face :-)

The one certain effect so far is the amount of forum posts discussing Lance, doping and Triathlon.
If the mainstream media coverage of Triathlon ends up dominated by similar topics, is that good? Lance comeback 2.0 in cycling ended up like that for sure.

No. The media won't talk more about triathlon. They will talk more about lance. Just like cycling. In the us anyway. Look at what happened... People don't really follow cycling, they follow lance. Even this forum is a good example. Aside from the few fans who know classics etc it's all about the tour.

Yup, in the worst case".... we are here at some triathlon somewhere, where somebody won, but the big story is Lance Armstrong and fresh concerns......"

Probably one of the most asinine statements I've ever read here.

Go talk to an oncologist. ANY oncologist.
Did you fry your brain with aerosols or something?

Obviously, you did not know that Lance gave himself cancer ...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...armstr_n_670506.html

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

    But there is more awareness of cycling in the US, and a bunch more bikes sold, as well as more money (in the US) put toward the sport by sponsors. All those things would be nice for the tri world to experience.

The Pros went fast really fast last year because they knew we Clydesdale's were on our way and wanted some food....

Bob

I would not have offered such inartful commentary so soon after Lance's first race back.

It reeks of the same shit we see from the Lance haters on this forum. It's not very classy.

---

**All of these words finding themselves together were greatly astonished and delighted for assuredly, they had never met before**

There are many people who believe Lance's cancer was caused by steroid use. What we do know is:

Testicular cancer is highly associated with steroid use in young men

Lance began working with Dr Ferrari the season before his cancer appeared.

That's not correct.

    
I agree with your sarcasm, but just wondered if a retired pro using his podium to echoe known heresay about a new contendor will have the outcome he wants. And what could that be ? Does TS hope it will snowball into a unanimous witchhunt until LA is forced out of the sport with his tail between his legs ? It didnt work in court and it didnt work in the Tour and just made things look ugly. Did anything really change in cycling even slightly apart from the new negative perception ? Maybe triathlon is different as its smaller community, but a half way effort just seems like its gonna leave as much of a bad taste in everyones mouth as hes trying to cure.

LA is the elephant in the room ... thats what WTC wants ... people just have to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater

I hope this post doesn't get lost in the fray. I thought it rather well written and thought out.

---

---

---

Take a short break from ST and read my blog:
http://tri-banter.blogspot.com/

Jordan, I don't understand all the concerns with LA fever. ANY attention directed positively towards the sport is good. I do remember back in the late 90's a young black golfer having all the attention thrown at him too, and the other pro golfers complained about it left and right. The networks were only concerned with showing Tiger, whether he was in contention or not (which he fortunately was most of the time). What was the end result? More exposure for ALL the golfers, which meant more sponsorship opportunities, more TV revenue money and ultimately, larger payouts for the participants. So in the end, everyone won. As long as LA continues to show results, which by all indications he will, everyone wins. People will follow the sport more and good things will follow (more participation by kids, better support, (hopefully) better pay days for the pros)

If as you say there are permanent effects of using PED's, then I would be curious to see just how many triathletes (both pro and AG) would be excluded from being considered 'clean'. As you said, LA never was never suspended for using PED's. And even though I am a fan of his, even I find it hard to believe he NEVER used them, ever.

But let's all hope that by having LA involved in the sport, positive things result. Perhaps it can begin at the top of our sport, with our pros.

To:..ANY attention directed positively towards the sport is good.
Well it seems by reding these threads that there is a lot that is not positive
...:Perhaps it can begin at the top of our sport, with our pros.

/..So if a pro has a legit concern or opinion, for the good of the sport they should not speak their mind......................Thats called "Omerta" its done cycling well.

You will never make everyone happy, so haters will always be a part of any discussion. I like to think of it as ' natural balance '. Often times, good thought provoking points will be made.

As far as my 'starting with the pros' comment, they have every right to be critical. Just don't stand back and put out noise, and then put out your hand for the extra revenue that LA's presense (may) brings and say nothing.

Lots more, in fact

---

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin

I wanted to address this specifically. It seems to me that there should be immediate lifetime bans for certain drugs that appear in your system (like EPO)...and the current 2 year ban for other PED's. If you get busted for the lifetime ban variety of PED, then it is up to you to prove there is either a problem with the test, or some other legitimate (non-tainted food) explanation.

I know I'm over simplifying this a bit, but really...wouldn't a lifetime ban for certain drugs (and variants like them) be a HUGE deterrent?

What bothers me about all of these tweets, facebook posts and forum posts is that we have no way of really knowing that the triathletes posting are clean either. How do we really know if Rappstar is clean, TS is/was clean or any other pro athlete is clean. They all have been tested I am sure many times but never tested positive. I am sure that the people taking PED's are ahead of the testing. The only person that really knows if they are clean or not is the athlete unless proven guilty by a court or federation.

I thinks it's safe to assume that he didn't undergo some sort of highly experimental gene therapy in secret, based on research that was also developed in secret and never published in the medical/scientific literature. So that leaves mutations in his genome, which would occur randomly (as it does in all organisms). These mutations could be good or bad, and unless occurring in progenitor cells, would be lost when that cell dies. or So Lance happens to be both a professional athlete who also manages, through cancer treatment, to inherit beneficial mutations ONLY. Talk about luck!

yeah..well said... people are so quick to criticize someone actually doing something, while the people doing absolute zero don't get a mention.

People act like they don't know his appearances and races are crucial to the foundations success. While business transparency has shown that Livestrong is actually pretty healthy in terms of percentages donated. Id like to know how much the people that complain its not enough actually do for charity. I dont konw what its like in america but here the profit you can claim from donated money as a charity is legally limited to a percentage.

I hope this post doesn't get lost in the fray. I thought it rather well written and thought out.[/quote]

I've had several people over the years compliment me on A) my point of view and B) my writing.

Quite frankly, this scares me! and maybe it should scare you too! :-)

I do a lot of my thinking on long bike rides or long runs. I pose myself a question at the beginning of the ride, and debate with myself as I ride. Big ideas, like my view on abortion, take several rides to develop my view. Once I develop my opinion on something, it's pretty set. Ocassionally someone will provide some data or information that I hadn't considered and that may tweak or swing my opinion another way, but that doesn't happen very often.

I think that many people don't go through that process and form opinions on the spot, based on little available information at the time. This is often clouded by their opinion generally falling in line with what side of the discussion is best for them. If for example a young girl gets pregnant out of wedlock, she is likely to be pro abortion, because it suits her at the time. People who draft, because it gets them to T2 faster, generally have all sorts of ways of justifying it to themselves, without actually figuring out what is right or wrong in the drafting case.

In addition to this, there are often two closely linked, but actually separate issues around any issue. Firstly there is the legal issue. Second is the moral argument. Using drafting again, there are rules as to what constitutes drafting, and there is riding closely behind someone, but still riding legally. Yes it's drafting, but not breaking the drafting rules. Written rules are generally not written as well as they could, and there will always be debate about minutinae of the rules. Moral arguments are even worse, because we all have different morals, with some people appearing to have no morals at all.

In this thread, there is yet again discussion about Lance and doping. Thankfully someone has whined about his foundation paying for him to go to races. Other pro's have to pay their own way so they may feel slighted they they are riding the bus or whatever and LA's in a jet, arriving nice and fresh for a race. Lance gets an advantage for that, but it's not free. He pays with his time, making appearances and generating tons o' cash for the foundation. Fair in my opinion. If other people want to get a jet to races, start a foundation, build it up, then fly the foundations jet. It's within the rules and everyone wins. The racer and the foundation.

If you think that is against your morals, I suspect that you are likely to be doing something in your life that is against someone elses morals as well. I live by my morals and let others live by theirs. I do however expect everyone to play by the rules in life in general and in triathlons as well.

It's my considered opinion, but it still scares me that people might agree with me as often people don't. :-).

---

TriDork

"Happiness is a myth. All you can hope for is to get laid once in a while, drunk once in a while and to eat chocolate every day"

Don't forget, he got the Cancer in the first place, and it damn near killed him. Is that the kind of luck you are talking about?

I'm glad I'm not as lucky as Lance in that case!

---

TriDork

"Happiness is a myth. All you can hope for is to get laid once in a while, drunk once in a while and to eat chocolate every day"