USADA - Armstrong

[mastersracer]

We have + tests for steroids and EPO from '99, so I'd say he did.
And apparently the recovery rate for testicular cancer is among the highest of all forms of cancer, so was his "miracle recovery" real or just part of the myth?

I believe LA was likely doping from early stages of his career, but these questions about the cancer element are misplaced. According to his doctors, he was diagnosed with late-stage metastatic testicular cancer that had spread to his abdomen, his lungs and his brain. The prognosis for this is poor.

 

[Maxiton]

You don't think it's possible the feds are intelligent enough to figure out the most favorable sequence of events for their own cause without needing to consult with USADA?

Yeah, OK, point taken.

 

[Square-pedaller]

I believe LA was likely doping from early stages of his career, but these questions about the cancer element are misplaced. According to his doctors, he was diagnosed with late-stage metastatic testicular cancer that had spread to his abdomen, his lungs and his brain. The prognosis for this is poor.

But better than LA would have us believe. This has been discussed before (probably on this thread) and if my memory is correct the chance of recovery was 40% (so certainly not in 'miraculous' territory).

 

[KingsMountain]

But better than LA would have us believe. This has been discussed before (probably on this thread) and if my memory is correct the chance of recovery was 40% (so certainly not in 'miraculous' territory).

According to the book, Armstrong was originally told a 90+% figure. Then as more work was done, and they found the the cancer had metastasized, the estimates dropped, to 70+ percent (abdomen) and then "almost a coin flip" (brain). Eventually Armstrong was told 30-40%. However, doctors try to give patients hope, and Scott Shapiro (the brain surgeon) later said he thought the chances were a few percent.

Those were the estimate for surviving. Virtually nobody gave him a realistic chance of being an effective bike race.

However, to me, "miraculous" is in a different category of odds.

 

[thehog]

According to the book, Armstrong was originally told a 90+% figure. Then as more work was done, and they found the the cancer had metastasized, the estimates dropped, to 70+ percent (abdomen) and then "almost a coin flip" (brain). Eventually Armstrong was told 30-40%. However, doctors try to give patients hope, and Scott Shapiro (the brain surgeon) later said he thought the chances were a few percent.

Those were the estimate for surviving. Virtually nobody gave him a realistic chance of being an effective bike race.

However, to me, "miraculous" is in a different category of odds.

I think its been established by now that his book is fall of several falsehoods.

I wouldn't base any of it on truths.

Mainly fantasy for the masses.

 

[perfessor]

Yep, I think he went full *** carpe diem as a direct result of his experience with cancer.

Yes, very well stated. People react differently when coming back from a bout with cancer --it certainly changed my mother in a loving "joy of life" way.
I can also see a young, arrogant athlete type coming back with literally *nothing* to lose --believing that life had dealt him a couple of bad hands, and taking revenge with both hands, and no holds barred.
I think he believes life *owes* him this, that rules are for suckers, and people are to be brushed out of the way. This would explain a lot.
Remember, on the 'web --I'm as good a psychologist as anybody

 

[Weapons of @ss Destruction]

Yes, very well stated. People react differently when coming back from a bout with cancer --it certainly changed my mother in a loving "joy of life" way.
I can also see a young, arrogant athlete type coming back with literally *nothing* to lose --believing that life had dealt him a couple of bad hands, and taking revenge with both hands, and no holds barred.
I think he believes life *owes* him this, that rules are for suckers, and people are to be brushed out of the way. This would explain a lot.
Remember, on the 'web --I'm as good a psychologist as anybody

^^^ Gets it.

Totally believable debunking IMHO of Armstrong's incredulous denials challenging people to suggest how/why he could possibly consider doping after his recovery from cancer.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Yes, very well stated. People react differently when coming back from a bout with cancer --it certainly changed my mother in a loving "joy of life" way.
I can also see a young, arrogant athlete type coming back with literally *nothing* to lose --believing that life had dealt him a couple of bad hands, and taking revenge with both hands, and no holds barred.
I think he believes life *owes* him this, that rules are for suckers, and people are to be brushed out of the way. This would explain a lot.
Remember, on the 'web --I'm as good a psychologist as anybody

W/r to comments from both you and Wo@D....My way of thinking too. Considering how he comes across with everything he does in his life I would fully expect him to say to himself "Wtf I'm going for it ..."

All or nothing.

 

[PedalPusher]

But better than LA would have us believe. This has been discussed before (probably on this thread) and if my memory is correct the chance of recovery was 40% (so certainly not in 'miraculous' territory).

My (ahem) "ex wife" works a cancer unit. She also worked at the very hospital where Lance was treated. 40% for an adult is basically a death sentence. Children on the other hand have a 80% survival rate, which is why she works there. (children's cancer)

BUT, in Lance's case, even at stage III(Embryonal carcinoma), there is over a 80% survival rate for the first year and around 70% for 10+ years. Why the first doctor said 40% I'll never know. So "miraculous" doubtful given the information out there.

You can check this out for more info. http://seer.cancer.gov/publications/survival/surv_testis.pdf

 

[Berzin]

Actually he came back to Europe didn't succeed and went back to Austin.

There is a documentary on him when he went back to the US. He actually spoke in a very humbled way.

It wasn't until the Hog got to him that he went back to Europe and within 6 months ala Froomey he had podium-ed at the Vuelta.

The rest they say is history...

I think he had left the Paris-Nice race because at that point he wasn't riding well enough to remain competitive.

There was that infamous training camp he did with idiot deluxe Bob Roll that was highlighted in Cycle Sport magazine. Supposedly, Armstrong just kept getting stronger and stronger, and Roll was effusive in his praise.

Then he came back and like The Hog stated he came in fourth in the Vuelta and rode well. I always thought that was as good as it would get judging from his abilities as a rider up to that time, but unfortunately it was just the beginning...

 

[mewmewmew13]

IMHO the odds or 'miraculous' recovery angle has no bearing on whether or not he chose to resume his doping....
He did and he is just a liar about most everything.

 

[PedalPusher]

IMHO the odds or 'miraculous' recovery angle has no bearing on whether or not he chose to resume his doping....
He did and he is just a liar about most everything.

But it works good to promote yourself!

 

[mastersracer]

My (ahem) "ex wife" works a cancer unit. She also worked at the very hospital where Lance was treated. 40% for an adult is basically a death sentence. Children on the other hand have a 80% survival rate, which is why she works there. (children's cancer)

BUT, in Lance's case, even at stage III(Embryonal carcinoma), there is over a 80% survival rate for the first year and around 70% for 10+ years. Why the first doctor said 40% I'll never know. So "miraculous" doubtful given the information out there.

You can check this out for more info. http://seer.cancer.gov/publications/survival/surv_testis.pdf

The figure that is relevant is the brain metastases. The published survival rate for patients with multiple brain lesions (such as Armstrong) in the 1990s is 9%. This is why his brain surgeon gave a grim prognosis.

Bokemeyer et al., Treatment of brain metastases in patients with testicular cancer, J. Clinical Oncology, 15(4): 1997.

 

[Maxiton]

Yep, I think he went full *** carpe diem as a direct result of his experience with cancer.

Yes, I agree with this, as well.

 

[perfessor]

The figure that is relevant is the brain metastases. The published survival rate for patients with multiple brain lesions (such as Armstrong) in the 1990s is 9%. This is why his brain surgeon gave a grim prognosis.

Bokemeyer et al., Treatment of brain metastases in patients with testicular cancer, J. Clinical Oncology, 15(4): 1997.

Indeed, and that just supports my cynical view; the death sentence continues to hang there (he's, after all, in remission) and drive his grasping for the brass ring, at all costs

 

[PedalPusher]

The figure that is relevant is the brain metastases. The published survival rate for patients with multiple brain lesions (such as Armstrong) in the 1990s is 9%. This is why his brain surgeon gave a grim prognosis.

Bokemeyer et al., Treatment of brain metastases in patients with testicular cancer, J. Clinical Oncology, 15(4): 1997.

Yes that was written 1997, pretty irrelevant now. Newest information suggests it depends on the type of carcinoma. His was pretty high survival rate carcinoma, even with metastasis in the brain. The survival rate alone just for the abdomen lymph nodes is 96%.


All of this is irrelevant anyway, kudos to him, he fought cancer and won. my two family members didn't. They should have read his book now I guess.

Back to the topic at hand.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Why is Lance's cancer relevant to his doping again? I am trying to make the connection, and just cannot seem to do so...

 

[BYOP88]

Why is Lance's cancer relevant to his doping again? I am trying to make the connection, and just cannot seem to do so...

Isn't linked to the fact a substance he was using in the mid 90's acted as a masking agent and stopped the Doctors from detecting the cancer?

 

[BroDeal]

Why is Lance's cancer relevant to his doping again? I am trying to make the connection, and just cannot seem to do so...

Because the mods like all discussion related to a general topic in one ginormous thread, so there is no other place to discuss things.

 

[Weapons of @ss Destruction]

IMHO the odds or 'miraculous' recovery angle has no bearing on whether or not he chose to resume his doping....
He did and he is just a liar about most everything.

No, but perhaps it had a bearing on just how far he was willing to go? Rather than limit himself to previously accepted norms of doping in the peloton, he could have given the OK to volunteer himself up as the equivalent of lab test rat for anything Ferrari wanted to try. It's the well-known "Goldman Dilemma" that a couple of previous posts have alluded to;

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/20/phys-ed-will-olympic-athletes-dope-if-they-know-it-might-kill-them/

 

[larryduff]

Actually he came back to Europe didn't succeed and went back to Austin.

There is a documentary on him when he went back to the US. He actually spoke in a very humbled way.

It wasn't until the Hog got to him that he went back to Europe and within 6 months ala Froomey he had podium-ed at the Vuelta.

The rest they say is history...

what is that documentary hog and can it be found online? thanks

 

[BroDeal]

No, but perhaps it had a bearing on just how far he was willing to go? Rather than limit himself to previously accepted norms of doping in the peloton, he could have given the OK to volunteer himself up as the equivalent of lab test rat for anything Ferrari wanted to try. It's the well-known "Goldman Dilemma" that a couple of previous posts have alluded to;

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/20/phys-ed-will-olympic-athletes-dope-if-they-know-it-might-kill-them/

I never believed the "Goldman Dilemma." It smacks of polls where the answers are dependent on the way a question is asked and the respondents not taking the time to consider the real implications.

 

[mastersracer]

Yes that was written 1997, pretty irrelevant now. Newest information suggests it depends on the type of carcinoma. His was pretty high survival rate carcinoma, even with metastasis in the brain. The survival rate alone just for the abdomen lymph nodes is 96%.


All of this is irrelevant anyway, kudos to him, he fought cancer and won. my two family members didn't. They should have read his book now I guess.

Back to the topic at hand.

Armstrong's cancer was in 1996. The 1997 estimates are the relevant ones for that reason. That's just false that he had a highly survivable cancer (even now). It is irrelevant to the question of doping except some other people have tried to make it relevant by suggesting Armstrong also fabricated the severity of his cancer. That's a pretty tasteless argument, in my opinion, and one not supported by the relevant case studies.

 

[ggusta]

Yep, I think he went full *** carpe diem as a direct result of his experience with cancer.

Don't know, perhaps while fighting cancer he had one of those 'If you could do it all over again.' moments and what he decided he would do if he could is whatever was necessary to win the tdf.

I really do not know what goes on in another person's mind and sometimes not even my own! but this is one of infinite possibilities.

 

[poupou]

But better than LA would have us believe. This has been discussed before (probably on this thread) and if my memory is correct the chance of recovery was 40% (so certainly not in 'miraculous' territory).

Discovery Channel had a reportage on Lance's story, and his doctor says 40%.
BTW, thanks to medicine and doctors who have saved his live.