Will the 'cancer lobby' support Lance?

[tubularglue]

As a patient afflicted with this disease, you don't "work hard" to fight cancer. It's not "the mind over matter" battle he has made it out to be

agree,

a throw of the dice. my experience

 

[SpartacusRox]

Stunning Post!

Yep, tell people what they want to hear and it will get them every time. There a quite a few similarities to berzin's post and what he accuses LA of.

Set up a nice caricature and then just feed into it what a lot of people on this site respond to. Posts like this are always 'stunning' when they just feed the collective bias.

 

[Polish]

LAF.org has ALREADY had a positive impact on so many people.

If it closed its doors today and pulled up stakes, it would be remembered as a tremendous success.

And Fundraising for Cancer Programs will survive without Lance if they have to.
Yes, they really will, believe it or not.

That said, it would not suprise me if the "phones ring" or "e-contributions" tick UPWARDS every time there is an article in the NYTimes or WSJ or USA Today. Even if it is "negative". Publicity is publicity. BackLash contributions.

 

[thehog]

Yep, tell people what they want to hear and it will get them every time. There a quite a few similarities to berzin's post and what he accuses LA of.

Set up a nice caricature and then just feed into it what a lot of people on this site respond to. Posts like this are always 'stunning' when they just feed the collective bias.

Ease up. I've been self pleasuring over Berzin's post. Its good.

 

[tubularglue]

Yep, tell people what they want to hear and it will get them every time.

Are you typing in absolutes?

 

[Race Radio]

Those who have bought into the whole tribal/kinship survivor community, with the matching yellow wristbands and the athletic apparel, are just people looking for a cult to belong to. Cult members always appear to have more influence than their numbers suggest, and when his lies come crashing down on him, the Armstrong Branch Davidians will scatter and find something else to obsess over.

Classic post

 

[thehog]

LAF.org has ALREADY had a positive impact on so many people.

If it closed its doors today and pulled up stakes, it would be remembered as a tremendous success.

And Fundraising for Cancer Programs will survive without Lance if they have to.
Yes, they really will, believe it or not.

That said, it would not suprise me if the "phones ring" or "e-contributions" tick UPWARDS every time there is an article in the NYTimes or WSJ or USA Today. Even if it is "negative". Publicity is publicity. BackLash contributions.

I don't normally respond to you because I know your game.

However read this article in full: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/sep/07/science-writing-prize

And I mean read all of it. Because I know most don't. In fact no one reads anything about cancer. Livestrong tried to break into words like "courage" and "hope" etc. but that's just plain bullsh1t. Read the article. There's the real heroes. And by the way. They don't get a single cent from Livestrong or Armstrong. They've never heard of him.

 

[Berzin]

Yep, tell people what they want to hear and it will get them every time. There a quite a few similarities to berzin's post and what he accuses LA of.

Set up a nice caricature and then just feed into it what a lot of people on this site respond to. Posts like this are always 'stunning' when they just feed the collective bias.

Let me address this. Armstrong never exhibited the power output (watts) and had a good, but not outstanding VO2 max to win one Tour much less 7 in a row.

This is why his physiological stats have always been a matter of obfuscation and a game of smoke-and-mirrors by people like Chris Carmichael.

So without the hard-core physiological data to go by (power output, weight, VO2 max, hematocrit levels), we've had to rely on what exactly to explain his success?

The physiological tests that were done and published were widely disputed as being fraudulent. I don't have a link for this data, but if someone remembers what I'm talking about feel free to post it.

All that is left is "the miracle". That is the only thing to explain this man's success. But there are no miracles when it comes to human physiology. Cancer doesn't transform an athlete in such a manner. Never has, never will.

If you can explain with hard physiological numbers how a barrel-chested one-day cyclist could transform himself into a Tour juggernaut without PEDs, then be my guest.

This is the explanation we've all been waiting to hear.

The ball is in your court, Spartacus- let's see you rock.

 

[Neworld]

Armstrong never exhibited the power output (watts) and had a good, but not outstanding VO2 max to win one Tour much less 7 in a row. This is why his physiological stats have always been a matter of obfuscation and a game of smoke-and-mirrors by people like Chris Carmichael.
...

Agreed.

Maybe this should be on another thread but...I'll leave that decision up to a moderator.

After reading post after post of pseudofacts I thought it would be important to ‘try’ to list as many facts as possible (perhaps on a sticky post at the top of the clinic) about 2 of the most prestigious riders in the last decade: J. Ullrich and L. Armstrong.

The purported media driven slander is that one rider is clean, skinnier, more tested and has a higher anaerobic threshold, VO2Max, larger lung capacity and ‘heart size’ (inferring CO-Cardiac output), higher cadence than the other.

Yes, some of these issues may never be proven, however some of these items can be elucidated and at least recorded on CN Forum so that present and/or new bloggers can be redirected to ‘the list’ (someone can name it) to allow for a more streamline discussion.

Personally, I don’t believe in the LA/JB/Phil Liggett corporate driven outright lies. Here are some facts that I have found. Please feel free to correct, revise and add to the list. I think this may be a fantastic opportunity to clean the air on a few issues; presently the air smells quite fetid.

Dopers: 

(i) JU: Confirmed to have taken recreational ‘E’ and booze. Never tested positive for EPO, Autologous Blood doping(ABD), HGH or Testo. Essentially confirmed to be linked with Fuentes and storing ABD.


(ii)LA: Tested positive for Cort in 1999 TdF. Retrospectively found to have at least 6 samples with rEPO in urine in 1999 TdF. Claim that LA had a positive test in 2001 TdSuisse, Also, see E. O’Reilly, M. Anderson, F. Andreu, F. Landis...



Weight at TdF:

(i) JU

Variable, but 1998 stands out as the only yr that Jan was overweight.
(ii) LA
The evidence presented by LA & his legal team in the SCA suit puts his weight loss at 1-2kgs. The only way to get a greater difference is to use the 72kg Ed Coyle cites as what Armstrong thought his weight was and then use his off season weight of 78.9kg from Nov 92. Then you can get 6.9kgs. But the problem is Armstrong's recorded weights paint a completely different picture

Nov 92 - 78.9kg
Jan 93 - 76.5kg
Sept 93 - 75.1kg
Aug 97 - 79.5kg
Nov 99 - 79.7kg

So from 92 to 99 he put almost a kilo of weight on! Figures from Ed Coyle's article Journal of Applied Physiology published March 2005




Most tested athlete: See recent Forum article on LA


Higher AT/Lactate T: ????? 
(i) JU

(ii) LA


VO2Max:

(i) JU: 

Can anyone find this value?
(ii) LA: 83.8ml/Kg-Min (? conflicting reports) JPhysio (1996)


M. Indurin (88), G. LeMond (92.5), F. Landis (90), E. Merckx (77), B. Hinault (87)

-in a study by Coyle(1) on 7x Tour de France Champion Lance Armstrong, Coyle looked at Lance's VO2 max at different points in his career:
Time Period
Weight (kg) VO2 Max (Absolute) VO2 Max Relative
Nov 1992 Preseason: 78.9 5.56 70.5
Jan 1993 Preseason: 76.5 5.82 76.1
Sep 1993 Racing: 75.1 6.10 81.2
Aug 1997 Reduced: 79.5 5.29 66.6
Nov 1999 Preseason: 79.7 5.7 71.5

Coyle, Edward. Improved Muscular Efficiency Displayed as Tour de France Champion Matures. Journal of Applied Physiology, 2005, 98: 2191-2196.



Lung Capacity: TdF medical records
(i) JU

(ii) LA




Heart size: Cannot find data on either (i) JU

(ii) LA




Cadence:
NOt sure this is even worth recording.
(i) JU: Variable but somewhere between 80-85, clearly changes with slope.
(ii) LA: Variable but somewhere btn 90-100, clearly changes with slope.


Riding ‘8 hours a day’: haha! Ok had to have some humour in this post.

NW

 

[180mmCrank]

I don't normally respond to you because I know your game.

However read this article in full: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/sep/07/science-writing-prize

And I mean read all of it. Because I know most don't. In fact no one reads anything about cancer. Livestrong tried to break into words like "courage" and "hope" etc. but that's just plain bullsh1t. Read the article. There's the real heroes. And by the way. They don't get a single cent from Livestrong or Armstrong. They've never heard of him.

Nice link thanks

 

[Tubeless]

Since he realistically did very little besides use his cancer foundation to promote himself, there will be very little ripple effect over his downfall in the cancer community. And by cancer community I mean the oncologists and researchers who do battle with this disease every day of their working lives.

Those who have bought into the whole tribal/kinship survivor community, with the matching yellow wristbands and the athletic apparel, are just people looking for a cult to belong to. Cult members always appear to have more influence than their numbers suggest, and when his lies come crashing down on him, the Armstrong Branch Davidians will scatter and find something else to obsess over.

This post is spot on. But who'd dare to bring this up in any sort of public way? The topic is taboo, off limits to be criticized. Try writing this as an op-ed piece on American Charity Journal or similar publication and you'd become the #1 target of an army of Livestrong cavarly.

I agree this type of cancer ra-ra charity works only in the US and plays to the mentality of many here who have a burning need to SHOW they're doing something good for their friends and loved ones - personal 1:1 support just does not seem enough. A $1 yellow wristband gives them that feel-good sense, a way to show their suffering friends and loved ones that they care and that they're teaming together to help out.

On the other hand, LAF certainly does not do any harm. It would be a lot easier to support it if Lance was not making a commercial fortune on the side. But alas, the two are inter-linked and it's difficult to see the foundation survive long term if Lance's legal troubles get worse as predicted. That's when the hopes of many get dashed away - it will be hard for many to accept their hero was a fraud all along.

 

[Benotti69]

This post is spot on. But who'd dare to bring this up in any sort of public way? The topic is taboo, off limits to be criticized. Try writing this as an op-ed piece on American Charity Journal or similar publication and you'd become the #1 target of an army of Livestrong cavarly.

I agree this type of cancer ra-ra charity works only in the US and plays to the mentality of many here who have a burning need to SHOW they're doing something good for their friends and loved ones - personal 1:1 support just does not seem enough. A $1 yellow wristband gives them that feel-good sense, a way to show their suffering friends and loved ones that they care and that they're teaming together to help out.

On the other hand, LAF certainly does not do any harm. It would be a lot easier to support it if Lance was not making a commercial fortune on the side. But alas, the two are inter-linked and it's difficult to see the foundation survive long term if Lance's legal troubles get worse as predicted. That's when the hopes of many get dashed away - it will be hard for many to accept their hero was a fraud all along.

If these people(fans) found hope in something like a yellow wristband, i think they won't need to look too far for the next 'miracle' to find their next cult to follow as Berzin points out.....


....but we will miss Flicky, UniballPolisher, Chrissie and friends who have been rocks here

 

[Berzin]

Since the cancer lobby has been subjected to these types of cynical, manipulative messages, I believe they will behave accordingly towards this man when the time comes...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VfiXAaEQiY&feature=related

 

[Tubeless]

Since the cancer lobby has been subjected to these types of cynical, manipulative messages, I believe they will behave accordingly towards this man when the time comes...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VfiXAaEQiY&feature=related

Lance defending himself against doping allegations with images of seriously sick cancer patients - paid for by Nike. And Lance likely got a nice ad fee on top of it. Sick.

To turn this seriously false virtual reality show around, the best case scenario would be an admission of doping by Lance - be it as part of a criminal plea deal, civil settlement or as a defense strategy (doping yes, crimes no). This would leave no doubt with anyone that he was a cheater. Everyone could then connect the dots and see what a calculated lie and business fraud the whole cancer connection has been, including the very possibility that he helped get cancer himself via doping.

However, it's likely we will never see it. It's possible Lance won't ever take the stand or answer any questions in either the criminal or civil case. Even if Lance gets indicted, his loyal supporters who know next to no details beyond these ads will feel he's wrongfully charged. If a jury convicts him, they will root him to go for an appeal - which he will undoubtedly do. Lance will keep making statements that he will "keep fighting like he did when he was diagnosed with cancer". Some portion of the cancer community will stick with him all the way. Call them blind or ignorant, but in a cult it's hard to turn on your preacher.

 

[Boeing]

I have actually though of this topic but it is hard to discuss with people with out a conspiracy theory tag

I am not sure about a cancer lobby specifically. Lobby's are deep pockets with a lot to protect. Maybe it is deeper like a "pharmaceutical Lobby" perhaps we can read into a relation ship between Livestrong and the Pharmaceutical industry?

Clearly the RX Co.'s have Washington's ear...in some respects....

 

[Cloxxki]

Surely the prosecutors and even court are not really interested in any dime a defendant ever donated to a charity, even if it was earned by crawling (bare knees) around France 20 times? That's only a media thing.
A jury will surely be instructed to disconnect the epic media figure from the claims of wrongdoing.
Also, in the courtroom, any time the word patient or cancer are used other than relating directly to the year 1996 and the defendant in particular, it's inadmissible and a diversion from the court's duties?
That the guy is an extremely unfriendly and ego-centric person, is just as inadmissible for the prosecution to use as a context. We can't influence the jury.

Anyway, the cancer lobby will need to choose, and not waste time.

The Pharma industry though, loves people who are ill, and keep fighting for the last breath. If truly terminal patients would decide to focus their mental energy on the task of eternity, Pharma will lose money. Health insurance would get cheaper. So, we must fight for every second. For Pharma, preferably with a myserios incurable disease which we do have various treatments for.
It's not too far-fetched to see BigPharma inventing diseases for which they already devised the cure. As long as Lance support fighting against cancer, and patients relate, BigPharma benifits. Plus, they don't have a conscience. They're in the business of medicating people. Have us get old, preferably the last 30 years gravely ill.