PDA

View Full Version : Cushing press conference @ 1pm Central


Pages : 1 [2]

Fox
05-14-2010, 12:07 PM
I love Cush as a player, but I do NOT believe he really played all last season believing he had a tumor.

Agree with the above. Somehow I doubt he saw a doctor who told him, "You may have a malignant tumor..... let's check it out after the season." It sounds as if he did undergo an evaluation for a tumor after the elevated test, which does support his story, but undergoing further evaluation now after months of normal levels of hCG and presumably no clinical symptoms (ie. a growth on his nuts) just comes off as wanting to get the public to buy it. Occam's razor suggests a much more plausible cause for an elevated hCG in a professional athlete who has a body builder's physique.

That said, I thought he gave a relatively convincing press conference and said what he needed to say for his purpose of ultimately reestablishing himself as a 'clean' player. The second half of the battle is no more positive drug tests, and if he can accomplish that then by and large this issue will be in the rear view mirror a la Peppers and Merriman after next season, IMO.

GP
05-14-2010, 12:30 PM
Looking at photos of him during the 2009 season, his arms are not bulging and ripped or anything.

I think he's off the stuff, personally. And I bet he stays off it.

His 2010 season holds no possibility of winning awards and being selected to the Pro Bowl. He can't win an individual honor until 2011...if there is a 2011 season.

He should not have done the presser. Everyone in the media is laughing at his answers. The presser revealed nothing of significance, and he looked dejected instead of incensed and sure of himself. Just my opinion.

Serve your four games, stay off the juice, and return ready to make a big run.

Fox
05-14-2010, 12:51 PM
He should not have done the presser. Everyone in the media is laughing at his answers. The presser revealed nothing of significance, and he looked dejected instead of incensed and sure of himself. Just my opinion.

It's not a huge point of contention but I thought that the press conference was necessary and that he made the most of it. Shying away from the media and hiding behind a brief press release almost appears as a silent admission of guilt. He wants to be viewed as a clean player, he needed to show that he was willing to stand before the firing squad and defend himself. His responses were to the point, articulate, and were obviously thought out beforehand - in fact there's no doubt in my mind that he'd been extensively coached before hand. I didn't see any lack of confidence in his quick responses. And as far as not appearing 'incensed,' I don't think coming out and looking like the angry meat head athlete on a roid rage was going to do his image any favors. And incensed at who? The company who did the test? The NFL? His stand point is he's confused as to what even happened, who is he to be mad at? This press conference was necessary for his PR and he executed it surprisingly well, IMO.


And I have question for anyone who may know... When did they begin the PED testing? His positive test was from September, was that the first since the combine? I'm just thinking that if hCG is supposed to be taken following a cycle of steroids, was there prior testing to September and why didn't it come back positive for steroids or hCG, unless he had some method of masking it that failed him in September?

dalemurphy
05-14-2010, 02:33 PM
The most revealing thing about the press conference is the absurdity of the press. Richard Justice blasted him in the paper and on Sirius NFL radio this morning saying that he offered no evidence, etc... RJ sat there with an opportunity to ask any question he wanted to and instead, decided to lie in the weeds and wait for Cushing to not explain things to RJ's satisfaction.

GP
05-14-2010, 04:02 PM
His stand point is he's confused as to what even happened, who is he to be mad at? This press conference was necessary for his PR and he executed it surprisingly well, IMO.

Mentioning "cancer" was wrong of him. It's a slap in the face of those who really do battle cancer.

Doctors are :facepalm:'ing over the answer.

Wants to say he doesn't know what's going on, and that he's worried and searching for reasons? Fine by me. But laying out a specific instance and acting like he thought he might not live to see this season? Wrong move. Bad P.R., IMO.

That's my major fault with it. Oh well.

Fox
05-14-2010, 04:11 PM
Mentioning "cancer" was wrong of him. It's a slap in the face of those who really do battle cancer.

Doctors are :facepalm:'ing over the answer.

Wants to say he doesn't know what's going on, and that he's worried and searching for reasons? Fine by me. But laying out a specific instance and acting like he thought he might not live to see this season? Wrong move. Bad P.R., IMO.

That's my major fault with it. Oh well.

Yea, I agree he shouldn't have played that card, at least not in the sense that he was worried about it all season. Overall, I still think it was a mission accomplished for him.

Ole Miss Texan
05-14-2010, 04:23 PM
Mentioning "cancer" was wrong of him. It's a slap in the face of those who really do battle cancer.

Doctors are :facepalm:'ing over the answer.

Wants to say he doesn't know what's going on, and that he's worried and searching for reasons? Fine by me. But laying out a specific instance and acting like he thought he might not live to see this season? Wrong move. Bad P.R., IMO.

That's my major fault with it. Oh well.

But did he ever mention cancer? I remember him saying tumors. And that he was told the hcg could be from injecting it in him or from tumors. Then he went on to say he played the rest of the season thinking he had tumors in him. Correct me if I'm wrong b/c I've slept since then but I don't remember "cancer" ever being mentioned.

But I do get what your saying. I also believe IF he was actually told that was a possibility.. it would have worried him during the year. No matter when a doctor says that it's probably not that and that there's a remote chance of this... it still worries the heck out of you.

Fox
05-14-2010, 04:43 PM
But did he ever mention cancer? I remember him saying tumors. And that he was told the hcg could be from injecting it in him or from tumors. Then he went on to say he played the rest of the season thinking he had tumors in him. Correct me if I'm wrong b/c I've slept since then but I don't remember "cancer" ever being mentioned.

But I do get what your saying. I also believe IF he was actually told that was a possibility.. it would have worried him during the year. No matter when a doctor says that it's probably not that and that there's a remote chance of this... it still worries the heck out of you.

The 'tumors' he's referring to are potentially malignant, cancer. And I believe it's been suggested that he had a work-up for cancer when he initially had the positive test. The facts don't point to a high likelihood of cancer that he'd have to worry about during the season.

Ole Miss Texan
05-14-2010, 05:14 PM
The 'tumors' he's referring to are potentially malignant, cancer. And I believe it's been suggested that he had a work-up for cancer when he initially had the positive test. The facts don't point to a high likelihood of cancer that he'd have to worry about during the season.

Maybe I'm argueing semantics here but did he ever say the word CANCER?

My additional point is about getting told this information from the doctor. Has anyone here been told by a doctor, "another alternative is that you could have tumors that are cancerous, although there is a low likelihood this is the case." Now I've never been told this, thankfully... but I have a feeling if I was ever told this or if it was about a family member, that's all I would be thinking about. I don't care if its a 1% chance - that would scare the hell out of me.

Fox
05-14-2010, 05:27 PM
Maybe I'm argueing semantics here but did he ever say the word CANCER?

My additional point is about getting told this information from the doctor. Has anyone here been told by a doctor, "another alternative is that you could have tumors that are cancerous, although there is a low likelihood this is the case." Now I've never been told this, thankfully... but I have a feeling if I was ever told this or if it was about a family member, that's all I would be thinking about. I don't care if its a 1% chance - that would scare the hell out of me.

No, I don't believe he used the word cancer, but I certainly feel like it was implied. I agree I would be freaked out if someone told me I may have cancer, but again I think he underwent an evaluation after the positive hCG test, and it doesn't sound like there was any further cause to believe he had an hCG secreting tumor throughout the remainder of the season.

Ole Miss Texan
05-14-2010, 05:32 PM
No, I don't believe he used the word cancer, but I certainly feel like it was implied. I agree I would be freaked out if someone told me I may have cancer, but again I think he underwent an evaluation after the positive hCG test, and it doesn't sound like there was any further cause to believe he had an hCG secreting tumor throughout the remainder of the season.

I went back and listened to part of it on ht.com Towards the end he addressed the tumor scenario again. Said he was told two ways to get hcg was through injection or tumor. he knew he never injected anything into him so he played thinking he had tumors. that it could not only be his last season but his last year. Sheesh - Pretty deep.

Ole Miss Texan
05-14-2010, 05:40 PM
Here's another thing about the "tumor" scenario.

He originally gets tested in September. Time goes by and he's not notified that he tested positive for a banned substance until October.

So starting in October is when we have to assume they start looking for what the heck is going on. I'm sure they do more of the "same" testing to see if it's still popping up. There's time involved in that. I'd assume he visits more doctors and gets more opinions. Let's say this tumor theory pops up in one of those visits. Then they schedule the testing for it. Then they wait for those lab results to get back.

The season is essentially 4 months long (September - December). That's not really a lot of time for when this test first happens in September, he gets notified in October. My point is - this all takes some time and I can totally understand the thought of these tumors worrying him during the season. It's not like they got all the doctor visits, opinions, testing, results, diagnosis all done in a matter of weeks. This takes time.

Fox
05-14-2010, 05:47 PM
It's not like they got all the doctor visits, opinions, testing, results, diagnosis all done in a matter of weeks. This takes time.

That's a valid point. It sounds like he first underwent testing in November, but had subsequent testing afterwards.

Cushing was randomly tested by the NFL in September. He was informed of the positive test in October and appealed. His suspension was announced May 7.
....
After getting the letter in October from the independent doctor in Ohio that he had tested positive, Cushing had five days to file his appeal. Cushing, his family and agent Tom Condon were the only ones who knew he had tested positive and had appealed.
Condon said Thursday that Cushing underwent his first “battery of tests” in November. Condon said Cushing has subsequently undergone more tests in Houston, San Diego and Denver.
“He was tested for a variety of things that were recommended by his (personal) doctor,” Condon said. “My understanding is they’re going to do it again. They’re going to take him from head to toe and repeat everything.”
A person close to Cushing said he underwent tests that turned up negative for testicular cancer.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/fb/texansfront/7003559.html

Speedy
05-14-2010, 07:29 PM
I think he did more damage with what he said, which is always the risk.

But my point is, people have their minds made up already of what they think the truth is or what they think it should be. And if anything comes out of Cushing's mouth that isn't that pre-conceived "truth" then he's a liar. So I don't even see the point of having a press conference. Because like I said, the only thing he could have said that people thought would be the truth is "I did it." Anything else and they're calling him a liar.

I've only heard bits and pieces of the conference but the way I hear it is that he's not using tumors as an excuse but was just saying that he was told that the only other way was if he had a tumor. Just like we're being told that's it's supposedly the only other way. So if he didn't shoot up then he's thinking to himself, "holy shit, then that must mean I have a tumor".

Now I don't know enough about it other than what I've read on the internet and heard on the radio. And internet reading doesn't make me nor anyone else, scientifically qualified on the subject.

What I do know is that shit happens. Products get tainted whether it's a human finger in your chicken McNuggets or hcg in a supplement. Then there's the hundreds of supplements and/or drugs and their interactions with other supplements and/or drugs. I know we think science is fact, and it is to a point. That point being a new discovery being made bringing about a new scientific fact.

Whether I believe him or not really doesn't matter at this point, especially with what little facts I have. What matters is that Mr. Cushing needs to be negative the rest of his Texans career and play like the beast he did last year.

Of course there's always the sophomore jinx sitting there waiting to bite him in the ass and if that happens everyone will think they KNOW.

Mr teX
05-14-2010, 07:47 PM
That's a valid point. It sounds like he first underwent testing in November, but had subsequent testing afterwards.


http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/fb/texansfront/7003559.html

He didn't mention the word "cancer" it's just been implied by everyone b/c he mentions fearing for his life; as if benign tumors are any less terrifying and lethal.

But the above mentioned story if true is significant b/c it goes to his story & suggests that the kid may genuinely not have a clue about how the stuff got into his body. Look at the timeline, he found out in October & got a litany of tests in the next month, presumably as soon as he could considering it's during the season.

If he floated that story out there & then we find out there was no testing for tumors of any type done until like last week, then yeah, i wouldn't even be giving him the benefit of the doubt.

It all points to the fact that there might be some truth in what he says.

Fox
05-14-2010, 09:37 PM
He didn't mention the word "cancer" it's just been implied by everyone b/c he mentions fearing for his life; as if benign tumors are any less terrifying and lethal.


"Cancer" is implied because the testicular tumors that produce hCG are cancerous, ie. not benign.

The Pencil Neck
05-14-2010, 09:46 PM
"Cancer" is implied because the testicular tumors that produce hCG are cancerous, ie. not benign.

Frankly, when he said "tumor", I didn't hear "cancer". I think some people automatically made that leap and some people didn't.

Of course, I'm also the guy that really got sick last year and didn't realize that all the tests the doctor was running were looking for cancer until she told me she was happy that she didn't find it. My wife, of course, was on the verge of hysteria and I was wondering why the hell she was being so emotional about it.

Similarly, I didn't feel that Cushing was pulling the "cancer" card looking for sympathy. I was a little ticked off when I heard people talking about that. All I heard was a kid saying that he was very afraid for his health and life after trying to figure out why he tested positive and being told that tumors can cause this sort of reading. And from what I've heard, he took steps to try to find out what was wrong with himself and that seems like he's being truthful.

I still think this was an unexpected and unintended side effect from some other compound (or combination of compounds) he was taking. I think he didn't take hCG and I think he was honestly surprised he tested positive for it.

JB
05-14-2010, 10:00 PM
Frankly, when he said "tumor", I didn't hear "cancer". I think some people automatically made that leap and some people didn't.

Of course, I'm also the guy that really got sick last year and didn't realize that all the tests the doctor was running were looking for cancer until she told me she was happy that she didn't find it. My wife, of course, was on the verge of hysteria and I was wondering why the hell she was being so emotional about it.

Similarly, I didn't feel that Cushing was pulling the "cancer" card looking for sympathy. I was a little ticked off when I heard people talking about that. All I heard was a kid saying that he was very afraid for his health and life after trying to figure out why he tested positive and being told that tumors can cause this sort of reading. And from what I've heard, he took steps to try to find out what was wrong with himself and that seems like he's being truthful.

I still think this was an unexpected and unintended side effect from some other compound (or combination of compounds) he was taking. I think he didn't take hCG and I think he was honestly surprised he tested positive for it.

This. And maybe stepping up his training another notch. Everyone that knows him is surprised at this. And they all say he is the hardest working guy out there.

Didn't someone mention that increased exercise as well as testing right after sex could cause an increase in the level of hcg?

Perhaps he has been working as hard at night as he is during the day...

I did at his age...

thunderkyss
05-15-2010, 12:03 AM
Are these truths?

In your professional opinion. If the NFL really wanted to know, how hard would it be to find out?

"rinnnnng" "rinnnng" :
Cushing: this is Cush.. what up?
NFL: This is Amy Whiner with the office of Roger Goddell, in accordance with our suspected candidates program, I have to ask you where you are.

Cushing: Damn... I mean, What?? I'm in Peru... Ayacucho, Peru.
NFL: One second. (typing on computer).. Ok, Mr. Cushing? There is a doctor's office on (such & such) street. You have 45 minutes to get there and submit a sample.

Cushing: Yes ma'am, I'm on my way.

GP
05-16-2010, 10:54 AM
No, I don't believe he used the word cancer, but I certainly feel like it was implied. I agree I would be freaked out if someone told me I may have cancer, but again I think he underwent an evaluation after the positive hCG test, and it doesn't sound like there was any further cause to believe he had an hCG secreting tumor throughout the remainder of the season.

This. ^^^^

I swear, some of you guys are cracking me up.

Oooo! He didn't "SAY" cancer! Uh, it would have to be cancerous in order to produce elevated levels of hCG.

He was also scared that it might be his last year. Why? Because he wanted to retire and write fiction novels about mysterious tumors that cause failed drug tests? LOL.

Honoring Earl 34
05-16-2010, 11:04 AM
This. ^^^^

I swear, some of you guys are cracking me up.

Oooo! He didn't "SAY" cancer! Uh, it would have to be cancerous in order to produce elevated levels of hCG.

He was also scared that it might be his last year. Why? Because he wanted to retire and write fiction novels about mysterious tumors that cause failed drug tests? LOL.

Now that he's paddled to the middle of the lake , I hope he's clean because I don't want to see another Roger Clemens episode . I would like to hope it was all a big mistake and he's clean and healthy and Godell issue a big apology before Bang Cartoons make a video .

Note .... Brian .... if you are going to sue for that defamation of character thing ... they're going to show that you didn't have any to start with .

infantrycak
05-16-2010, 11:20 AM
"Cancer" is implied because the testicular tumors that produce hCG are cancerous, ie. not benign.

Except as explained in another thread an enlarged pituitary is often caused by an adenoma which is a tumor which is benign and non-cancerous.

Fox
05-16-2010, 12:18 PM
Except as explained in another thread an enlarged pituitary is often caused by an adenoma which is a tumor which is benign and non-cancerous.

Agreed, forgot about that. It still sounds like he had a relatively thorough work-up for both testicular and pituitary tumors as mandated by the NFL in November following the positive tests for hCG - which is why I'm incredulous that he was concerned about tumors all season.

infantrycak
05-16-2010, 12:56 PM
Agreed, forgot about that. It still sounds like he had a relatively thorough work-up for both testicular and pituitary tumors as mandated by the NFL in November following the positive tests for hCG - which is why I'm incredulous that he was concerned about tumors all season.

I agree that doesn't make much sense. Sometime during the season after the result came back you would think he could find a day to have a full workup. They get Mondays off after wins.

The Pencil Neck
05-16-2010, 01:34 PM
I agree that doesn't make much sense. Sometime during the season after the result came back you would think he could find a day to have a full workup. They get Mondays off after wins.

I don't know. Every time I've had something like this done, it's taken a while. And it's always seemed like every doctor that's looked at whatever results I got always had differing opinions on what should be done and what it meant.

And in this case, the NFL had a series of mandated doctors/tests he had to go through. We don't know how long it took for that to happen.

There's just a lot that we don't know about the time lines and when everything happened or did not happen.

Rey
05-16-2010, 01:45 PM
Anybody ever watch House?

I know it's just a TV show, but I think it's safe to assume that real life scenarios happen like the ones depicted in the show all the time. I am starting to think that it is extremely possible for different medical proffesionals to look at Cushing's raised level of hcg and come to different conclusions as to why that is.

thunderkyss
05-16-2010, 03:42 PM
I agree that doesn't make much sense. Sometime during the season after the result came back you would think he could find a day to have a full workup. They get Mondays off after wins.

I'm sure it is easy enough to rule out testicular cancer, but tumors aren't always easy to find, and they can grow just about anywhere, and they are all worthy of serious thought.

CloakNNNdagger
05-16-2010, 05:50 PM
I'm sure it is easy enough to rule out testicular cancer, but tumors aren't always easy to find, and they can grow just about anywhere, and they are all worthy of serious thought.

If HCG is present as a result of the presence of a tumor, the HCG doesn't mysteriously disappear........it does not disappear unless the tumor is removed.

Fox
05-16-2010, 06:05 PM
If HCG is present as a result of the presence of a tumor, the HCG doesn't mysteriously disappear........it does not disappear unless the tumor is removed.

Quoted from yourself and cak in one of the other bajillion threads for context... The NFL urine test is a qualitative test - it only gives a yes or no like a dip stick pregnancy test. The designed break over point is 20 miu/cc or four times the upper end of normal. Historically this test has had very few false positives and lots of false negatives.

So my question is do we know if he's had serum testing, ie. quantitative testing, that has been stone cold normal? Reason I ask is if we only know that he's had negative qualitative tests subsequent to the positive tests then maybe the hCG hasn't completely disappeared - maybe it's only been twice, or thrice the upper limit of normal and hence not enough to show positive on the NFL's urine test. I mean it's been reported he was borderline positive to begin with. I'm sure he's had serum testing, just curious if it has been completely negative since September as well.

Ole Miss Texan
05-16-2010, 06:38 PM
This. ^^^^

I swear, some of you guys are cracking me up.

Oooo! He didn't "SAY" cancer! Uh, it would have to be cancerous in order to produce elevated levels of hCG.

He was also scared that it might be his last year. Why? Because he wanted to retire and write fiction novels about mysterious tumors that cause failed drug tests? LOL.
All I'm getting as it that everybody is jumping to conclusions and/or falsifying what was actually said. I'm pretty much the only one that has jumped on the "cancer" being mentioned so I'm assuming you're referring to me. I questioned if he actually used the word "cancer" because (1) I wasn't actually sure and (2) because it was about to turn into the whole "ESPN reports Cushing tests positive for Steroids" which was false. With as little information/facts as we're getting, we might as well not try to make stuff up. And very few of us are medical doctors that know what we're talking about. I know little to nothing about this subject and I think we're all learning as we go along. Case in point is this next quote from cak:

Except as explained in another thread an enlarged pituitary is often caused by an adenoma which is a tumor which is benign and non-cancerous.
Turns out there may be non-cancerous tumors that can produce hcg. wow.
If HCG is present as a result of the presence of a tumor, the HCG doesn't mysteriously disappear........it does not disappear unless the tumor is removed.

Quoted from yourself and cak in one of the other bajillion threads for context...

So my question is do we know if he's had serum testing, ie. quantitative testing, that has been stone cold normal? Reason I ask is if we only know that he's had negative qualitative tests subsequent to the positive tests then maybe the hCG hasn't completely disappeared - maybe it's only been twice, or thrice the upper limit of normal and hence not enough to show positive on the NFL's urine test. I mean it's been reported he was borderline positive to begin with. I'm sure he's had serum testing, just curious if it has been completely negative since September as well.
Kind of my thinking as well fox. It could be producing above levels hcg all along... it just may be at an 18 instead of the 'above 20' that results in a positive test.

Again, I'm not trying to make excuses for Cushing or spin anything. All I'm trying to do is learn as much about this as we can. And avoid the whole bashing because we really don't know what's going on. Some say if it quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck... it's probably a duck. That's true. But as I've said before: If it croaks like a toad and hops like a toad... it actually could be a frog.

CloakNNNdagger
05-16-2010, 06:49 PM
Quoted from yourself and cak in one of the other bajillion threads for context...

So my question is do we know if he's had serum testing, ie. quantitative testing, that has been stone cold normal? Reason I ask is if we only know that he's had negative qualitative tests subsequent to the positive tests then maybe the hCG hasn't completely disappeared - maybe it's only been twice, or thrice the upper limit of normal and hence not enough to show positive on the NFL's urine test. I mean it's been reported he was borderline positive to begin with. I'm sure he's had serum testing, just curious if it has been completely negative since September as well.

He undoubtedly has undergone more than one serum QUANTITATIVE HCG test (more not less sensitive) following his "definitively" positive urine qualitative test, normally included in any serious workup of such a potential problem. If there was an explanation other than HCG intake for increased serum HCG levels, they would continue to be present until the source is removed.

thunderkyss
05-16-2010, 08:21 PM
If there was an explanation other than HCG intake for increased serum HCG levels, they would continue to be present until the source is removed.

And we don't know if they are or not. I think his point was, if Brian has been getting tests which show exactly how much hCG is in his system, and the test come back at a 17 or 18, that would equate to a negative by the NFL standards.

So the official word would be he tested positive once, and all other tests were negative. Which is the condition causing you to doubt the validity of Brian's statement, as you know the elevated level of hCG would not go away.

Another scenario would be like the first test, where the "A" sample tested positive, so they tested the "B" sample which showed negative, and resulted in a negative test. However, you said a false negative is more likely than a false positive... so every other test he took that came up negative... maybe the "A" sample resulted in a false negative, and there was no reason to test the "B" sample.

Now, I'm not as stupid as I look (:thisbig:), I understand the most probable explanation is that Brian was coming off an anabolic steroid cycle. I know every other explanation for the elevated level of hCG are huge stretches, and would require an alignment of the planets and descension of Angels.

My stance is that I'll give any man, & every man the benefit of the doubt (unless it concerns the safety of my family).

This is more than enough evidence to convince the NFL. I'm fine with that. This is more than enough to convince you, and several others on this board. I'm fine with that as well. But there are still some that want more evidence before they start defaming Brian Cushing. We should all be fine with that.