- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Lance Armstrong fears drug use led to testicular cancer – admits to first doping ‘probably at 21’
Lance Armstrong has admitted doping as early as the age of 21 and expressed fears that his drug-taking may have contributed to his testicular cancer in 1996.
The comments come as part of ESPN’s rather functionally titled two-part documentary, Lance, which will be broadcast on May 24.
News.com.au reports that when asked how old he was when he first doped, Armstrong replies, “probably 21.”
Strikingly, that would be before his world road race title in Oslo in 1993 after turning professional the previous season.
“My first professional season,” he says. “It was cortisone; drugs that stimulate your body’s own production of cortisone.”
Asked whether he feels he got cancer from doping, he replies: "You know, I don't know the answer to that.
"I don't want to say no, because I don't think that's right either. I don't know if it's yes or no, but I certainly wouldn't say no.
“The only thing I’ll tell you is the only time in my life I ever did growth hormone was the 1996 season.
“So in my head: growth, growing hormone and cells – if anything good needs to be grown, it does. But wouldn’t it also make sense if there is anything bad in there, it too would grow?”
Armstrong says he was however less concerned about possible negative effects of EPO.
"In many ways – and this is not going to be a popular answer – EPO is a safe drug," he says.
"Assuming certain things. Assuming [it is] taken properly, taken under the guidance of a medical professional, taken in conservative amounts – there are far worse things you can put in your body."
In 2018, Armstrong settled the long-running ‘whistleblower’ case originally initiated by his former US Postal Service team mate Floyd Landis, paying out a total of $111m in compensation and legal fees.
As you might imagine, he and Landis are not on speaking terms.
“Hey, it could be worse,” he says at one point in the ESPN film. “I could be Floyd Landis. Waking up a piece of shit every day. I don’t think it, I know it.”
Landis responds: “Everybody wanted to treat me like I was this evil, cheating liar. I told the truth and then I was a rat, turning on his own people. It was a no-win situation.
“I said this is what happened to everybody. Of course, it became about Lance because everything is always about Lance. That’s the way he wants it.
“He cannot pin that part on me. That’s his approach to life. It’s about ‘me’. When you’re that protected by the organisation that runs cycling, you can take out personal vendettas as well as win. He liked that. That was his thing.”
Speaking last year, Armstrong claimed he "wouldn't change a thing" about his doping.
“It was a mistake. It led to a lot of other mistakes. It led to the most colossal meltdown in the history of sports. But I learned a lot.”
Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.
Latest Comments
- burncpt 10 min 3 sec ago
There's a very good reason why pump tracks are often built in deprived areas - because, as the article mentions, they are excellent at reducing...
- mattsccm 1 hour 36 min ago
I have to assume that the cyclist wasn't thick enough to just change lanes without looking. Not a small puddle so I guess that they saw it and...
- Simon E 2 hours 29 min ago
Being a titchy lightweight I find the minimum pressures shown on bike tyres are considerably higher than I would use....
- Simon E 2 hours 43 min ago
Bruyneel saying publicly that Boonen "should shut up" is all you need to know about both Bruyneel and the doping regime at his team. Dirty in both...
- Barraob1 2 hours 56 min ago
I like it because it's a bit different, but it's way out of my price range. Wonder if it will take off, or will we be talking about in 15 years...
- kingleo 3 hours 4 min ago
Cyclists used the roads before cars - it was cyclists who petitioned the government to put a hard surface on our roads.
- wtjs 3 hours 1 min ago
I had a brief moment of déjà vu about established reds...
- hawkinspeter 6 hours 32 min ago
I saw something about the Smart Lever a month or so ago, and was intrigued enough to put it on my Xmas list, so maybe I'll get to have a play with...
- hawkinspeter 8 hours 4 min ago
Who the fuck's that?
- PRSboy 8 hours 49 min ago
Rather better than my effort on Coll de Rates at 28:05, but in my defence it was 30c, I'd had a big lunch and a beer and climbed it on an old MTB I...
Add new comment
25 comments
Who's Lance Amstrong?
Question is who would have beat Armstrong on a level playing field over that time period?
We now know in the 7 years he won the top 20 and more were on the juice.
So without the juice who could have toppled Armstrong?
Also those who didn't dope who would have beat Armstrong?
You fail to grasp just because many were on drugs, doesn't mean it was a level playing field for the druggies.
people respond to drugs differently, that is why you basic premise is false.
Funny how all the lies and strong evidence piled up at Sky . Yet your all happy to believe they are clean .....funking unbelievable. Because Froome and Wiggo all of a sudden turning into world class climbers at a late age is down to training and marginal gains ....or maybe at Garmin a team full of dopers wigg just got on the programme and at Sky when they hired doping dr Leinders they started getting results . Having 5 riders from one team drop top climbers week after week , nothing suspicious going on there ....
Why does anyone continue to give this waste of space the oxygen of publicity?
Just treat him with the contempt he diserves, and ignore his self serving whining.
"I'm gonna tell you........my truth"
We've had that before, I'd rather have the truth.
So he's now admitted doping before he even turned professional... When's he going to admit to doping for his 2009 comeback tour, or is there still a statute of limitations period to expire on that so he can keep the money from it?
It amazes me that one human being can have an ego this big!
He's the Narcissists Narcissist.
Like all champions he's self obsessed,selfish and no time for anything else that doesn't focus on the job in hand , Winning the Tour de France.
You will find Armstrong's behaviour no,different than that of other champions. What he did wrong was returning to cycling and dealing with something no one else has had to deal with before on that level . The fact still remains he won his 7 tours riding against a fully doped up peloton , all of his rivals have been busted since . No one has clean hands if you count doping as cheating . He won fair square simple as that.
What I do enjoy about the ardent armstrong adorers that when he was competing and the non-fans, also known as haters (daft term if ever I've heard one), mentioned that he waa doping the response was "never, im sorry if you cannot dream, out busting his ass 8 hours a day training etc etc. Now that he has admitted to doping their story changes accordingly and now it is "ok, he was doping but it's ok, apparently everyone else was". Sheeesh make your mind.
No . I always new he was doping. . I don't have a problem with it . Common sense , tells that . Look at his climbing it was unreal , that's because he was doping . All the journalists knew he was doping . No one said anything .
I have never been nieve to think pro top level athletes are clean . They never have been and never will be those are the facts . So I agree some fans were sucked in like a certain commentator but personality I wasn't. Have you ever been to the tour , I have been many times and to other pro European races .when those riders hit those climbs it's quite unbelievable. The focus and concentration they have .there physically condition and strength in comparison to there size . You cannot perform at that level without doping .
By the way my fav rider was Cadel Evans . He has a spell for a year or 2 where he was virtually unbeatable. .
But you know its against the rules, and cheating, right?
"All the journalists knew he was doping. No one said anything." David Walsh? Paul Kimmage?
Are you broken?
No way that EPO can give you cancer . Steroids do not give you cancer . Plenty of bodybuilders who are well into there old age and are doing very very well some look amazing . Growth hormone https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16430706/. Plenty of studies , but also plenty of body builders athletes who have used it and did not get cancer . I'm surprised by Armstrong's comments . But he was the greatest tour winner and a genetic freak to some extent. And to all those Armstrong haters ,get over yourself, everyone was doping he was just beating all the other dopers and also think about this Porte and Froome both beat Armstrong's col d madone time . If you think they beat that clean then your living in a delusional world of make believe. About time sport just came clean about doping . It's not a big deal ,nobody cares anymore and the sports can stop wasting money and resources on something they can never stop . I have taken many steroids as a body builder when I was young and it was all good ,not one health issue . Suck it up people it's what professionals in sport do .
"I have taken many steroids as a body builder when I was young and it was all good ,not one health issue"
Apart from my many incoherent posts.
You might want to edit your libelous post.
Not agreeing with someone is fine . You don't like my posts then just ignore it. Obviously it bothers you. My posts are quite clear and concise. I even post links . There is nothing libellous about my post .
Just to point out that taking steroids in the UK is not illegal. You just can't buy them or sell them on line . There are legal ways to take certain steroids as well. I recall Sky getting a package of testosterone in the post
You clearly have no idea how EPO works and how they benefit some more than others. It wasn't a level playing field and not everyone doped.
I know exactly how EPO works . Some riders respond better than others.
if you happen to have better genetics concerning your lactic threshold then you have a advantage full stop . That's why for instance you look at some riders and they seem to be more talented climbers but they don't have the ability to recover better than another rider again this is genetic .
There are so many variables. But the fact is if you are not doping in a peloton that is doping then you are going to be left behind . Go take some EPO . Go ride or run with your friends you will soon see the benefits it gives you .
I have taken EPO . I know exactly what it does and how it differs from just training in high altitudes ( I've done that as well) It's very different.
so before you make a comment about what I know or don't know try engaging your brain first .
kind regards .
Honestly I preferred the "never failed a test / omerta" version of Armstrong than this whiney faux reflective version. Should've taken his ban on this chin, riden off into the sunset (none-competively), retained a shred of dignity & fan boys would be still be defending him. He'd probably be in politics by now.
“Hey, it could be worse, I could be Floyd Landis. Waking up a piece of shit every day."
Still got it.
Some fan boys are still defending him... See above 😂
The story I was told in 1999 was that he'd admitted to the doctors that he'd doped and they'd concluded that his immune systems had been suppressed by the doping and that allowed the cancer to progress rapidly. I.e. doping didn't give him cancer but it made the effects on him a lot worse.
he is a dick
That's a fair assessment...
FWIW I live in Austin and have spent a little time around the guy. I won't be watching this 30 for 30; we won't learn anything new. It's just recycling the same old story and keeping Lance in the public eye.
Exactly. Lance who is a narcissist.
Naaaa. A dick is a useful thing.