Lance Armstrong used performance enhancing drugs? Behold our shock!

[bmcg]

There is nothing sympathetic about Lance Armstrong. Reprehensible man.

For all the lies he told and all the lives he ruined, zero respect for this man.

Why admit it now? He hopes to gain something, he didn't do what he did for the last decade+ to suddenly feel the urge to clear his conscience. The man wants something and I only hope Americans aren't stupid enough to give it to him again. He isn't sorry, he's calculating.

[Anita18]

I'm not at all surprised to see John (or anyone) still wearing a Livestrong bracelet. Many of my friends (and I) have been wearing them for years and I don't know anyone who has stopped. Because it was never about Lance Armstrong for them. It was about supporting loved ones who have fought and are fighting cancer.

As far as the message being "if you think positively, you can beat this!"... well, I don't think it is intended as some sort of affront to people who have lost their lives to cancer. It's just that "no matter what you do, you're dead!" isn't much of an inspirational message. People want to feel like there is something they can do to fight, even if they won't win.

Also, spending months believing that you're going to die isn't a way to live. It's one thing to prepare a will, it's another to stop making plans for the future because you don't believe there will be a future.

Armstrong is an asshole, but it doesn't negate the fact that he came back from cancer to be a professional cyclist. He didn't dope merely to get back on the bike - he doped to win. Getting back on the bike after cancer was all him. I think there is still some inspiration there. But general role model? No way.

[bmcg]

Isn't a possible side effect of prolonged steroid use testicular cancer? Isn't that what Armstrong had?

[maatTheViking]

I'm not at all surprised to see John (or anyone) still wearing a Livestrong bracelet. Many of my friends (and I) have been wearing them for years and I don't know anyone who has stopped. Because it was never about Lance Armstrong for them. It was about supporting loved ones who have fought and are fighting cancer.

As far as the message being "if you think positively, you can beat this!"... well, I don't think it is intended as some sort of affront to people who have lost their lives to cancer. It's just that "no matter what you do, you're dead!" isn't much of an inspirational message. People want to feel like there is something they can do to fight, even if they won't win.

I guess that does make a lot of sense.

[Allskate]

At first, I thought he might be doing the interview to try to be able to compete in triathlons and maybe as a prelude to writing a book. Now, I think he also thought that, if he admitted to doping during his winning Tours, he could use the opportunity to look like he was now being honest and continue to lie about other things like whether he pressure the UCI to hide his drug use, whether he doped after the winning Tours, and whether he pressured other people to use drugs.

To me, the biggest mistake Armstrong made in the interview was his discussion of Betsy Andreu. The fact that, after all he did to her, he refused to admit that she had been telling the truth shows just what a scumbag he is. His defense that at least he didn't all her fact shows how clueless he is about basic decency. He is so lacking in decency and integrity than he can't even fake it effectively. I don't give a rip that this was private medical information that Betsy revealed. She was subpoenaed to testify under oath and she was right to tell the truth. The fact that she would not retract it later when Armstrong pressured her to do so is no kind of rationalization for what Armstrong did to her and her family. Any person with a shred of decency would know that. And yet he still can't do the right thing.

This interview showed just what a total scumbag he is, and I'm betting there's worse, and that he will continue to be a liar for the rest of his life whenever it is in his own interest to lie.

[bmcg]

This interview showed just what a total scumbag he is, and I'm betting there's worse, and that he will continue to be a liar for the rest of his life whenever it is in his own interest to lie.

Couldn't agree more. I'd like the media to focus more on Betsy and the other lives he tried to ruin so that they can all get the recognition and healing they need and deserve.

[overedge]

I think it can help in coping with what is a very difficult and scary experience, and in drawing upon available resources and sources of support. But I'll admit I'm not familiar with the research on this subject, so I could be wrong. I do stand by what I wrote in the main paragraph of my previous post, however.

I don't disagree that a positive attitude is a good method of coping. But it's the "you *can* beat this" part that's problematic IMHO. People die of cancer, and that outcome often has nothing to do with how positive their attitude is or isn't.

The other issue that I see with the message of positivity is that it doesn't leave space (for lack of a better word) in people's experiences to be scared, sad, depressed, in pain, and so on - which are inevitably going to happen, no matter how positive-thinking you are. IME what this leads to is people being encouraged, implicltly or explicitly, to ignore or downplay emotions that should really be recognized as part of the experience and managed as such, not treated as something wrong that wouldn't happen if they were positive enough.

[AragornElessar]

I pretty much agree with this. He donated 'tainted' money for cancer research. If it saved lives, that should not let him off the hook. What bothered me the most about Armstrong was not the drug use but the way he destroyed whoever said (truthfully) that he used drugs.

It is possible for a person to truly feel sorry and to become a very different person. However...........

Watching his face, I did not get the feeling that he was truly contrite. He came across as a businessman who got caught with a bad product and had to answer his customers. I wouldn't buy a thing from that guy.

On CNN some lawyers were asked about potential lawsuits. Chances are he could lose upto 90 million, but he already has about 125 million, and he is not likely to serve time in prison. So even if he gets sued, pays off, he still has about 35 million to live on- more than comfortably.

W/me, it was his eyes. They never changed and were ice cold the entire time. There was no emotion there at all.

I don't follow cycling, but watched the interview out of curiosity, and I came away with similar feelings to what someone posted in the cycling thread. I don't like the doping but could get past it, but what makes me angry is the way he treated people who made allegations against him. If he hadn't gone on the offensive like that, I don't think I'd be as convinced that he's an asshole. Also, with his history of lying, I really don't believe much of what he says now...if I had to hazard a guess, I wouldn't be surprised that a lot of the allegations he denied are actually true.

One part that confused me - does anyone have any theories on why he refused to comment on Betsy Andreu's statements? Her statement was fairly mild (and nothing more than he's already admitted to now), so I'm not sure why he can't answer and say it's true.

Yeah, that one had me wondering too. Only thing I could think of was possible law suits, but over what in this case? Betsy had every right to be as upset as she was last night on Anderson 360. Especially after...

At first, I thought he might be doing the interview to try to be able to compete in triathlons and maybe as a prelude to writing a book. Now, I think he also thought that, if he admitted to doping during his winning Tours, he could use the opportunity to look like he was now being honest and continue to lie about other things like whether he pressure the UCI to hide his drug use, whether he doped after the winning Tours, and whether he pressured other people to use drugs.

To me, the biggest mistake Armstrong made in the interview was his discussion of Betsy Andreu. The fact that, after all he did to her, he refused to admit that she had been telling the truth shows just what a scumbag he is. His defense that at least he didn't all her fact shows how clueless he is about basic decency. He is so lacking in decency and integrity than he can't even fake it effectively. I don't give a rip that this was private medical information that Betsy revealed. She was subpoenaed to testify under oath and she was right to tell the truth. The fact that she would not retract it later when Armstrong pressured her to do so is no kind of rationalization for what Armstrong did to her and her family. Any person with a shred of decency would know that. And yet he still can't do the right thing.

This interview showed just what a total scumbag he is, and I'm betting there's worse, and that he will continue to be a liar for the rest of his life whenever it is in his own interest to lie.

I still can't wrap my brain around that one. Did he really think saying what he did about how he basically ruined her life in a very public and calculated way and tossing off w/, "Yeah, I said all those things, but I never called her fat..." would make him look good? When he did that, I looked at Mom and she looked at me and we both could *ot* believe he not thought it was a smart thing to do, but to think that and then to say it? I.....Unreal.

Mom intends on watching Part Two tonight. I've seen enough.

[kedrin]

The difference between this interview and clips they played of his 2005 tesimony was striking to me- it looks like he's much more comfortable lying than he is in telling the truth.

[made_in_canada]

I don't disagree that a positive attitude is a good method of coping. But it's the "you *can* beat this" part that's problematic IMHO. People die of cancer, and that outcome often has nothing to do with how positive their attitude is or isn't.

The other issue that I see with the message of positivity is that it doesn't leave space (for lack of a better word) in people's experiences to be scared, sad, depressed, in pain, and so on - which are inevitably going to happen, no matter how positive-thinking you are. IME what this leads to is people being encouraged, implicltly or explicitly, to ignore or downplay emotions that should really be recognized as part of the experience and managed as such, not treated as something wrong that wouldn't happen if they were positive enough.

ITA with this. When I was a cancer patient, admitting any of the negative emotions was met with 'stay positive'. Ugh.

I've never purchased anything labelled 'Livestrong' because it always seemed like his personal brand and more about promoting Lance Armstrong than anything to do with cancer research or supporting cancer patients. That's my own personal perception but it was enough to keep me away.

[heckles]

When he was diagnosed with testicular cancer - my first thought was the performance enhancing drug use relationship.

I wondered about that as well. Did he give Oprah a time frame for his doping? I watched both interviews and don't recall his disclosing the years that he started and/or ended the doping. He had cancer in 1996, and Betsy Andreu alleged that he was doping before then. If he was doping all the way until his retirement from cycling in 2011, one has to wonder what additional health issues he's going to encounter.

[Zemgirl]

The other issue that I see with the message of positivity is that it doesn't leave space (for lack of a better word) in people's experiences to be scared, sad, depressed, in pain, and so on - which are inevitably going to happen, no matter how positive-thinking you are. IME what this leads to is people being encouraged, implicltly or explicitly, to ignore or downplay emotions that should really be recognized as part of the experience and managed as such, not treated as something wrong that wouldn't happen if they were positive enough.

That I agree with. I think health professionals who work with cancer patients should understand that while positivity is good and can be helpful in coping, forcing it on patients isn't the way to go; people shouldn't be made to feel as though they owe it to themselves or to others to remain positive and upbeat at all times, or as though there is no room for them to express other emotions. That's not a healthy form of emotional regulation for anyone.

If I had to sum up - I think the message should be that in most cases, this is not a death sentence, but that it doesn't mean that the experience of dealing with cancer isn't a difficult one or that the various emotions experiences by those dealing with it aren't appropriate. I'm sorry you were made to feel that way, made_in_canada, and I hope you're doing well now.

I wondered about that as well. Did he give Oprah a time frame for his doping? I watched both interviews and don't recall his disclosing the years that he started and/or ended the doping. He had cancer in 1996, and Betsy Andreu alleged that he was doping before then. If he was doping all the way until his retirement from cycling in 2011, one has to wonder what additional health issues he's going to encounter.

As I said earlier, I feel uncomfortable with that specific allegation made by the Andreus, due to the circumstances around it; that they told it under oath in court is fine, but sharing the story beyond that was not, IMO. For me, the main thing is that Armstrong says he doped in every TdF win and before that too - I don't particularly care about the details or each specific incident. I understand why other people, and specifically the Andreus, would feel differently, but I disagree that they are owed confirmation of every detail they have shared. They are certainly owed an apology, of course, and possible financial compensation. Emma O'Reilly does, too. And others.

Regarding the possible link between Armstrong's earlier doping and his testicular cancer, there are a number of risk factors for testicular cancer (apparently regular marijuana use is one), and while it's not common, my understanding is that it actually is one of the most common cancers in younger men. Also, presumably most riders of Armstrong's era were doping, and we haven't seen all that many adverse outcomes that I'm aware of. I hope we won't. Even if people take risks with their health - and there are many such risks, not just doping - I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

[IceAlisa]

IIRC, it's epo that is linked to testicular cancer, non?

[Zemgirl]

IIRC, it's epo that is linked to testicular cancer, non?

But if it were that much of a risk factor, wouldn't there be a lot more cases among athletes in various sports?

IIRC, at some point in the cycling thread I asked whether EPO can be used in the treatment of cancer patients, and someone answered that it was indeed used in some cases.

[Ziggy]

I have a lot of problems with Livestrong. Not the least of which is, their message seems to rest on "if you think positive and are strong, you can beat this". So what happened to all the people who die of cancer? They didn't think positively enough?

It's their fault they died!

Barbara Ehrenreich "Smile Or Die: The Tyranny of Positive Thinking"

[heckles]

Barbara Ehrenreich "Smile Or Die: The Tyranny of Positive Thinking"

Weird, it looks like that's the UK version of Ehrenreich's book, Bright-Sided: How Positive Thinking Is Undermining America. Similar release dates and subject matter. Did not know there were two versions. Bright-Sided is very entertaining, especially when the author describes her battle with breast cancer and how women with that disease tend to be trivialized with Susan G. Komen gift bags stuffed with pink crayons and teddy bears.

[Ziggy]

Yes, it's the same book.

[heckles]

For me, the main thing is that Armstrong says he doped in every TdF win and before that too - I don't particularly care about the details or each specific incident.

I don't care much about specific events beyond the TdF wins and 2000 Olympics, but I'm interested in the time frame from a medical perspective. His testosterone usage is surprising, as many would assume that would be contraindicated not only for Armstrong's cancer risk, but because it would create bulk that would not be useful in his sport, especially bulk in the thighs. Armstrong, like most other cyclists who admitted to doping, wasn't particularly "ripped", so that seems odd.

[Zemgirl]

Weird, it looks like that's the UK version of Ehrenreich's book, Bright-Sided: How Positive Thinking Is Undermining America. Similar release dates and subject matter. Did not know there were two versions. Bright-Sided is very entertaining, especially when the author describes her battle with breast cancer and how women with that disease tend to be trivialized with Susan G. Komen gift bags stuffed with pink crayons and teddy bears.

I agree that this is a deeply silly way of trying to help cancer patients. OTOH, at least for breast cancer patients there are a lot of available resources, support and information (ETA: in some countries). That's not always the case when someone has/is at risk for a less common type of cancer.

His testosterone usage is surprising, as many would assume that would be contraindicated not only for Armstrong's cancer risk, but because it would create bulk that would not be useful in his sport, especially bulk in the thighs. Armstrong, like most other cyclists who admitted to doping, wasn't particularly "ripped", so that seems odd.

I don't really know enough about the biochemistry of it - maybe it's a matter of dosage/frequency of use?

[Buzz]

The movie rights to his life story based on an yet to be released book has already been sold. The name of the book I believe is Cycle of Lies: The fall of Lance Armstrong. It does not sund like Armstrong will receive any royalties from either the book or movie.

http://www.theage.com.au/entertainme...119-2czwf.html