USADA files doping charges against Lance
Comments
-
No Zabriskie, current US TT champ.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0
-
Relvant that Horner is the only US Olympic rider that has ridden on teams with LA, but has come out publicly supporting LA over the last couple of days?0
-
You mean the sort of 'peer reviewed, evidence based practice' that all those stories refer to, and which were published in the Journal Cancer, the Lancet and the British Medical Journal? Those studies are also up to a decade more recent than the one you refer to. That study you cite doesn't even support the conclusion you wish to draw from it, with the abstract specifically making reference only to the value of 'social support systems and an element of spirituality and religion rather than having a 'will to survive' or 'fighting spirit'. It also relates these factors to measures of 'quality of life' rather than just survival rates. Without having access to the full paper it is hard to know just what sort of paper it is (a review? original research?) Nor what its detailed findings actually were.Full Merckx wrote:Peer reviewed, evidence based practice has always been my preferred source of info rather than PISH from the BBC
The general consensus, as supported by more recent scientific studies, is that having a 'positive attitude' has no effect on cancer survival rates. Here's one relatively recent peer reviewed paper on the topic. The full text is available.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 0/abstractEmotional well-being does not predict survival in head and neck cancer patients†
A radiation therapy oncology group study
James C. Coyne PhD1,‡,*,
Thomas F. Pajak PhD2,
Jonathan Harris MS2,
Andre Konski MD3,
Benjamin Movsas MD3,
Kian Ang MD4,
Deborah Watkins Bruner PhD5
Article first published online: 22 OCT 2007
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.23080
The current results add to the weight of the evidence that emotional functioning is not an independent predictor of survival in cancer patients.
...Studies that are interpreted as indicating that better psychologic functioning predicts longer survival among cancer patients8–11 can be countered with other instances in which better psychologic functioning appears to predict shorter survival12–15 and with the larger number of studies that had null results.16–27 This literature is plagued by studies with samples that are heterogeneous with respect to staging and cancer site, unmeasured or poorly measured confounding biologic and treatment variables, and small numbers of deaths to adequately accommodate possible variability in patient and treatment characteristics. The ready rival explanation of some apparent demonstrations that emotional well-being predicts survival is that patients' self-reported emotional states reflect overall disease burden and symptom distress or their awareness of their medical condition and prognosis.
The belief that emotional well-being affects survival, nonetheless, has been remarkably resilient in the face of contrary data.
Some comment via the APA on that paper:
http://www.apa.org/monitor/jan08/cancer.aspxIn the large-scale study conducted over nine years, Coyne and colleagues used baseline quality-of-life questionnaires to assess the well-being of 1,093 cancer patients. All participants were involved in clinical trials, which ensured uniformity of treatment and ruled out substantial health disparities in the sample. During the study, 646 patients died, and the research team found no relationship between their emotional well-being and cancer progression and death.
Though his findings strongly contradict the notion that a positive attitude is related to survival, the idea of "fighting" cancer is deeply rooted in our culture, says Coyne.
"It's the American way, that you can do it, you can fight it," he adds.
Based on the study results, Coyne believes it's important to not blame cancer patients who don't adopt an aggressively positive spirit.0 -
Hands up if you actually read any of those BikingBernie cut and paste jobs. Honest now.0
-
P.s. That article you referred to was published under the auspices of the Mayo Clinic. This is the current advice to patients from that same organisation:
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/cancer/HO00033Myth: A positive attitude is all you need to beat cancer.
Truth: There's no scientific proof that a positive attitude gives you an advantage in cancer treatment or improves your chance of being cured.0 -
Is Greg LeMond the team manager ? 8)0
-
afx237vi wrote:Hands up if you actually read any of those BikingBernie cut and paste jobs. Honest now.
Not me. I was quite interested in the US Olympic road squad stuff, which just got buried.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
Some would clearly benefit from doing so, especially 'Full Merckx', who is so ill informed as to think that I was talking 'PISH' about the current understanding of the irrelevance of having a 'positive attitude' or 'fighting spirit' to the likelihood of surviving cancer. As the APA article pointed out, believing such things is still a matter of faith amongst many, especially in the USA. Then again, no doubt many Americans still think that Armstrong was clean!afx237vi wrote:Hands up if you actually read any of those BikingBernie cut and paste jobs. Honest now.
0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
Some would clearly benefit from doing so, especially 'Full Merckx', who is so ill informed as to think that I was talking 'PISH' about the current understanding of the irrelevance of having a 'positive attitude' or 'fighting spirit' to the likelihood of surviving cancer. As the APA article pointed out, believing such things is still a matter of faith amongst many, especially in the USA. Then again, no doubt many Americans still think that Armstrong was clean!afx237vi wrote:Hands up if you actually read any of those BikingBernie cut and paste jobs. Honest now.
It was a sidetrack, swamping the rest of the discussion, which actually had something new in it.
Meanwhile it's the AMERICAN anti doping agency that's currently doing Armstrong et al. Not the French.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
No tA Doctor wrote:No Zabriskie, current US TT champ.
I'm not sure I would read too much that into it. Phinney came 5th in the Vuelta TT behind the three best in the world and Froome. As one of USA cycling's automatic selection criteria is finishing top three in a 40k+ GT TT, I would image that counted heavily in his favour.
Besides, GB haven't picked their TT champ either.Twitter: @RichN950 -
No tA Doctor wrote:No Zabriskie, current US TT champ.
only allowed one... I would choose phinney based on his form over Z... just"If I was a 38 year old man, I definitely wouldn't be riding a bright yellow bike with Hello Kitty disc wheels, put it that way. What we're witnessing here is the world's most high profile mid-life crisis" Afx237vi Mon Jul 20, 2009 2:43 pm0 -
RichN95 wrote:No tA Doctor wrote:No Zabriskie, current US TT champ.
I'm not sure I would read too much that into it. Phinney came 5th in the Vuelta TT behind the three best in the world and Froome. As one of USA cycling's automatic selection criteria is finishing top three in a 40k+ GT TT, I would image that counted heavily in his favour.
Besides, GB haven't picked their TT champ either.
I was thinking more about him in the road race team tbh, rather than taking the TT spot.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
I would say that this whole 'will to survive' myth in relation to cancer is very relevant to the main topic under discussion, as it helps us to understand why the persona of Armstrong had such an appeal to the American public.No tA Doctor wrote:It was a sidetrack, swamping the rest of the discussion, which actually had something new in it.
Much to the disgust of a large part of his American fan-base. Take a look on the 'slowtwitch' forum to see this refusal to face reality at its worst.No tA Doctor wrote:Meanwhile it's the AMERICAN anti doping agency that's currently doing Armstrong et al.
0 -
-
bernie, shut the fcuk up the actual debate and your own points about Doping are being lost. get back on track. even if you are right you are alienating people, this is not helpful.
Give it some thought, cheers.0 -
Your loss, not mine. :roll:No tA Doctor wrote:
Not interested.BikingBernie wrote:...0 -
Bernie! Come on.0
-
And what on Earth has all this discussion about team selections got to do with the USADA charges? :roll:skavanagh.bikeradar wrote:bernie, shut the fcuk up the actual debate and your own points about Doping are being lost.
Yes, people can get a bit shirty when it is demonstrated, especially via peer reviewed, experienced based articles that they are talking 'PISH'.skavanagh.bikeradar wrote:get back on track. even if you are right you are alienating people 0 -
BikingBernie wrote:And what on Earth has all this discussion about team selections got to do with the USADA charges?
Who isn't selected because of what they've told USADA. Simple.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
No tA Doctor wrote:RichN95 wrote:No tA Doctor wrote:No Zabriskie, current US TT champ.
I'm not sure I would read too much that into it. Phinney came 5th in the Vuelta TT behind the three best in the world and Froome. As one of USA cycling's automatic selection criteria is finishing top three in a 40k+ GT TT, I would image that counted heavily in his favour.
Besides, GB haven't picked their TT champ either.
I was thinking more about him in the road race team tbh, rather than taking the TT spot.
I don't what their full selection criteria is though. You could also ask 'Where's Talansky?' - I would have picked him ahead of DZ - and he's nothing to do with USPS.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Some of what you say may be interesting and relevant. Unfortunately. the way you express yourself for the most part means that the vast majority of us switch off as soon we see your avatar.BikingBernie wrote:
Your loss, not mine. :roll:No tA Doctor wrote:
Not interested.BikingBernie wrote:...0 -
iainf72 wrote:mididoctors wrote:coriordan wrote:mididoctors wrote:
So it has all (kinda) happened before. Whats the difference now?
Why didn't the officials take any notice before?
well thats a good question
Which part?
The feds were investigating, the USADA was investigating at the same time. The feds case was ended but the USADA continued their investigation. The feds case was about fraud, the USADA is about doping.
Not much of a mystery.
The Feds had to investigate doping to some extent if they were going to prove fraud. How does it work otherwise? What was the fraud about if it was tied to doping?0 -
DeadCalm wrote:
Some of what you say may be interesting and relevant. Unfortunately. the way you express yourself for the most part means that the vast majority of us switch off as soon we see your avatar.BikingBernie wrote:
Your loss, not mine. :roll:No tA Doctor wrote:
Not interested.BikingBernie wrote:...
Believe me (you might not), but the delivery aside, there are some supported facts in what BB says. It can sound relentless, but attitude vs cancer for instance is studied at length. Now, whatever the conclusions of any studies, they might not be entirely relevant to the thread title or original topic of the thread as inferred by title, but they are, nevertheless interesting... and where some of his posts get looked at as blind cynicism, is that as daft as blind faith in other cyclists??? blind faith some people display time and time again with their blinkered idolisation of their chosen heroes (that can often extend to their opinions going as far as to 'go on about' how they dress/conduct themselves etc, as if we're supposed to agree that these individuals are ones that we should also like/admire???... :roll: )
If anyone chooses to not find the posts interesting, then why let it bother them?
The cool thing about forums like this is that we all have our say, maybe BB has more than his say?? but if that's down to how much he says, then everyone else has the same opportunity.
Spend time typing rather than moaning/typing and balance the argument out?? (not aimed at you, just quoted you to post)
Threads such as this would be more boring without BB's input. Unless we want threads that has every other statement saying '+1' or the the witless 'I blame it on wiggle'.
Oh.. and PS.. BB, im not defending you or your apparent stances, but I don't find it important to pre-emtively prejudice myself to your posts before I read them (...which often I don't
) ... type (or cut'n'paste) on... 0 -
cycling5280 wrote:iainf72 wrote:
Mmididoctors wrote:coriordan wrote:mididoctors wrote:
So it has all (kinda) happened before. Whats the difference now?
Why didn't the officials take any notice before?
well thats a good question
Which part?
The feds were investigating, the USADA was investigating at the same time. The feds case was ended but the USADA continued their investigation. The feds case was about fraud, the USADA is about doping.
Not much of a mystery.
The Feds had to investigate doping to some extent if they were going to prove fraud. How does it work otherwise? What was the fraud about if it was tied to doping?
So it appears the FEDS dropped the charges on fraud (or Fabiani forced them to) however it looks like during their investigation they have uncovered evidence that doping products and equipment were sourced by those named.
These products may be legal to buy in the non cyclist world but owning or buying them in the cycling world only means one thing. So they have testimony and perhaps the paper trail thanks to the FEDS.
*have read the whole thread and woo, positive thinking, nazis and a unicorn. Passes the popcorn.+++++++++++++++++++++
we are the proud, the few, Descendents.
Panama - finally putting a nail in the economic theory of the trickle down effect.0 -
A couple of points:
1. I just have a nasty feeling that at the end of the day, no-one will get busted for this. Anyone else have this feeling ?
2. Can the PMA / Cancer posters just start up a different thread on what appears to be a pet subject. It's way off topic; I can normally tolerate threads leaping about all over the shop but in this particular instance I don't want to have to wade through loads of irrelevant posts to read anything with insight or some other update on the matter in hand0 -
symo wrote:
These products may be legal to buy in the non cyclist world but owning or buying them in the cycling world only means one thing. So they have testimony and perhaps the paper trail thanks to the FEDS.
*have read the whole thread and woo, positive thinking, nazis and a unicorn. Passes the popcorn.
Except they haven't. They got the testimony themselves.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
iainf72 wrote:Except they haven't. They got the testimony themselves.
You need to be at it full time to follow some of this stuff. I understood that to be the case too, but what's not clear is did they get it themselves from their investigation, or because they sat in on the Feds investigation.0 -
dougzz wrote:iainf72 wrote:Except they haven't. They got the testimony themselves.
You need to be at it full time to follow some of this stuff. I understood that to be the case too, but what's not clear is did they get it themselves from their investigation, or because they sat in on the Feds investigation.
Well, the source for that is Lance's lawyer. The USADA said they invite 10+ people to testify. They all did, except Lance. So regardless of whether Travis T worked with Big Jeff, the folks spoke to USADA. There is even talk that one of the people went to USADA without being called.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
Will just dip in here to post a link to a short, well written article by Jeff Pearlman on the CNN site upon how it's beginning to sink in about Armstrong in the US: http://tinyurl.com/8ypvshw
An aside: keep up the good work 'Biking Bernie'. "Lick My Decals Off, Baby"0 -
If only a few other people on here would do the same there would be no reason for me to restate some of the points I make so forcefully.mfin wrote:BB, im not defending you or your apparent stances, but I don't find it important to pre-emtively prejudice myself to your posts before I read them
It is just so happens that when someone attacks what I say, especially when they do not appear to have read what I actually said, and I know they are wrong, I am not particularly predisposed to let things lay, especially when they have resorted to personal insults.
Anyhow, lets move on with the real debate. 0
