Paco_P said:
A cynic might say that the need for money to develop good treatments was greater before their effectiveness been proven in the Tour.
Maybe. Who knows how people tend to view these things?
Personally, I don't see any link between cancer treatment and Tour performance--just a hope that the patient isn't so ravaged by the medicine that he/she can one day return to full, normal training.
The typical cancer treatment is mostly poison. In fact, the original course of treatment which Lance rejected would have wrecked his lungs and made a comeback impossible. Even with the alternative (lower-percentage recovery odds) treatment that Lance chose for himself, I certainly hope no one looks at Lance's comeback and then thinks that his cancer treatment was anything but savage.
If the Lance comeback gives hope to people undergoing chemo rounds, losing their hair, vomiting frequently, and watching their muscles atrophy daily--hope that they can return to normal--then that's awesome (
no sarcasm here). But, I hope other people don't think the need for improved treatment options is any less after seeing Lance bounce back.