Read what I first wrote again (”the doctors said they thought campaigning was perfectly within his physical capabilities and, if he started treatment right way, he would have recovered and been “full speed” by the time the campaign normally kicked in.”)
In other words, he had no physical limitations that would not allow him to campaign (or do anything else, for that matter). And, remember—I only entered this conversation to correct someone that erroneously posted that “Rudy didn’t run against Hillary because he was diagnosed with prostate cancer and had started chemotherapy treatments.”
I guess you would have preferred that myth be perpetuated—sorry to ruin your day.
Still would like a reference for this thing "the doctors" said. Anyway, I'll take your word for it that that's what "the doctors" said.
Meanwhile, here's what Rudy said at the time:
"I've decided that what I should do is to put my health first and that I should devote the focus and attention that I should to be able to figure out the best treatment".
Do you have a problem with someone with cancer deciding that what they should do is to put their health first and devote their focus and attention to treatment? If so, why?
In other words, he had no physical limitations that would not allow him to campaign (or do anything else, for that matter).
Who said he did?
He wanted to focus on treating his cancer. Get it?
And, remember—I only entered this conversation to correct someone that erroneously posted that “Rudy didn’t run against Hillary because he was diagnosed with prostate cancer and had started chemotherapy treatments.”
And as you've established, they weren't chemotherapy treatments, they were a hormone treatment plus external-beam plus brachytherapy (seed implantation). Good point. He didn't have chemotherapy, instead he had a different mixture of nasty things done to his body. So, not sure what you think that proves. The fact remains that he dropped out because of the cancer, like the person said. Not because it physically prevented him from being able to run in some sort of absolute it's-not-physically-possible way (which no one ever claimed!), but because he HAD FRICKING CANCER and wanted to devote his energies to TREATING THE DAMN CANCER, perhaps (one speculates) some political campaign seeming relatively unimportant to him by comparison to HAVING CANCER.
How on earth can you not be getting this?
I guess you would have preferred that myth be perpetuated—sorry to ruin your day.
What "myth"? The straw man you cooked up? Sigh. Let's all stipulate for the record that Rudy Giuliani would have been, strictly speaking, physically capable of running for Senate NY 2000. It was not physically impossible for him to have done so. If that's all you're trying to prove here, then fine.
Nevertheless, you seem not to get that the guy was diagnosed with cancer and thus had other things on his mind. So that is what he wanted to focus on, which is EXACTLY what he said at the time. You have no good reason whatsoever to doubt that statement he made regarding his reason, and yet here you are, continuing to argue, argue, argue....