Does Armstrong have a medical "right" to take testosterone?

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

On 22 Oct 2012 16:46:47 GMT, nmp 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?

Friar Broccoli wrote:

I know that even at 62 I produce a lot of testosterone during/after a
long ride.

Fascinating.

-S-

On 22/10/2012 17:46, nmp 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.

Armstrong, he only has one ball
Bruyneel has two, but very small,
Pat, he's just a ****
But Heinz Verbruggen has no balls at all...

boom tish

I thenk yew I thenk yew. I'm here all week missus...

UD

On 23 Oct 2012 16:37:40 GMT, nmp wrote:

Friar Broccoli:
nmp:
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

On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 11:14:11 -0400, "Steve Freides"
wrote:

Friar Broccoli wrote:

I know that even at 62 I produce a lot of testosterone during/after a
long ride.

Friar Broccoli wrote:
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 11:14:11 -0400, "Steve Freides"
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
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-

I DUNNO....search the rules for 'medical right.' Could be rules state riders have 'no rights' unless explicitly granted.

On 24 Oct, 14:04, 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
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.

On Oct 22, 9:46*am, nmp 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.


It depends. Many men in their thirties have low testosterone (below
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...