Had a lecture on it yesterday, it was interesting and cycling featured heavily. Say there was a cyclist who had cancer,, which they recovered from, and that cancer had been in their kidneys and liver - how would they then go on and have a successful racing career with limited ability to produce EPO?
You would probably find that the UCI would give them a special dispensation to have the same blood amount as a regular person. He would become multiple TdF winner and L'Equipe would accuse him of getting cancer and having their treatment managed to make a better athlete!
Either the lecture wasn't that good, or you weren't paying attention. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing and all that...
Crikey - care to explain that comment?
Having cancer in the kidneys and recovering doesn't mean that they stop producing epo or any of their other usual functions.
As above..
Never said that it did. Chances are that they wouldn't function at their previous level though...
Chances are?
Very evidence based...
I put it to you that a lecture to trainee physios is not sufficient to understand the finer points of renal endocrinology.
I put it to you that I don't give a shit. If a person with that much experience and that huge a field of expertise is convinced I'm happy to take their word on it.
Never said that it did. Chances are that they wouldn't function at their previous level though...
If you think for a minute any hormone/blood/anything else levels have any relationship to what a pro-cyclists organs produce then you're very naive.
lol, what a stupid post crikey, your first one. If you are going to post to asnwer a question, try and actually post something constructive.
who was the expert then?
[i]I put it to you that I don't give a shit.[/i]
Again with the evidence based commentary...
I'm no fan of Armstrong, and have read just about all the circumstantial evidence regarding his cancer and alleged drug use/abuse. That fact that he was winning while everyone around him was using performance enhancing drugs is strong enough evidence to convince me.
But his testicular cancer and subsequent metastases do not mean he was unable to produce his own endogenous epo.
Whoever was telling you about this doesn't know the specifics of Armstrongs case; how did the metastatic deposits affect his kidneys? Were they superficial or did they grow within the kidney tissue itself? How much of his kidney tissue was affected?
Pinches of salt are often required when 'experts' tell stories, particularly when they are trying to liven up lectures...
[i]lol, what a stupid post crikey, your first one. If you are going to post to asnwer a question, try and actually post something constructive.[/i]
And your first contribution is constructive?
Goan I hope your not paying tuition fees. Your not at the University of East Anglia are you?
No - I'm in a department that has a 5* research rating.
...and if you wanted a bit of a laugh, you could contact the expert while posing as a lawyer and gently remind him that Armstrong is very rich and very protective of his reputation, and then see if the focus of the lecture changes at all...
so the research is great but what about the teaching - name please
Lance Armstrong is an amazing athlete, 3rd Tour de france 2009 after nearly 4 years out of the sport, only 2 of the current best in the world could beat him, I think it's time people just said Chapeau, even L'equipe managed to say Chapeau le Texan. Next question. 😉