Yow.

There's a column by E.W. Swift on the latest doping allegations that have come out against Lance Armstrong over at Yahoo Sports.

One part of the story which I haven't heard addressed before is brought up:

"And why is that particular testimony significant? Because one of the possible side effects of prolonged steroid use is testicular cancer. It's impossible to prove, but if what the Andreus testified to under oath is true, than Lance Armstrong, role model and hero to so many cancer survivors, may very well have helped bring about his own cancer through his use of performance-enhancing drugs. Young athletes tempted to go down that road need to know if that's the case."

The implications of that possible dot-connection are staggering. So much of the public's respect for Armstrong is connected to his struggles with cancer. What would happen if people began to suspect that, if he was doping for such a long period, he overcame a disease that he may have had a hand in causing?

Swift is right, even if it is somehow verfied that Armstrong doped, the connection between that and the cancer is impossible to prove. But just the idea that much of what has cemented him as a national hero might have been a self-inflicted wound...