# “Was Betsy lying?”



## Stumpjumper FSR (Aug 6, 2006)

Exclusive interview with Fox59, Indianapolis

Lance Armstrong


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

I think maybe the doctor is choosing to tell a certain version of events that may benefit his professional career (he's connected to Livestrong in several ways). He may not be lying, for example he may not personally have asked the questions, but you better believe someone did (PA, nurse?) during Lance's initial visits. I have no doubt Betsy heard what she heard.


----------



## ArkRider (Jul 27, 2007)

Perhaps someone who works in oncology can help enlighten us, but I find it hard to believe that the question would not have been asked. Usually healthcare professionals have at least a little curiosity about factors that could have contributed to a patient's (very serious) disease.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

ArkRider said:


> Perhaps someone who works in oncology can help enlighten us, but I find it hard to believe that the question would not have been asked. Usually healthcare professionals have at least a little curiosity about factors that could have contributed to a patient's (very serious) disease.


I don't work in oncology, thankfully. Occasionally, I'm required to cross cover. 

I think it's possible that the steroids could have caused the testicular cancer. I consider the odds somewhat low considering that many athletes abused steroids and aren't contracting testicular cancer. 

I think I heard that Fignon reflected that the drug use might have caused his own cancer.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

I think both could be telling the truth, from their point of view. The confession easily could have happened in front of a different Doctor. 

Besides, Armstrong wouldn't deny the incident to Oprah. He just wouldn't talk about it. 

Funny, Armstrong is too tainted to pitch beer. But he's not too tainted to have his name on a position at a Medical College.


----------



## Dave Cutter (Sep 26, 2012)

Not sure the doctor really addressed that so much.... as just saying the good out weighted the bad.

“_He cheated in a sport_,” Einhorn said. “_He didn’t murder anyone, he didn’t steal money from anyone. He’s still a hero for people in the cancer community, and let’s be honest, if he didn’t dope, he would not have won seven straight Tour de Frances, because so many people were doping at that time. If he didn’t dope, and finished 17th, there wouldn’t have been a Livestrong foundation that helped millions of people with cancer.”_

I am not saying I agree with the doctor... but he makes a valid point. The 500 million Livestrong raised for cancer research won't likely be replaced. Very realistically... billions of dollars of cancer research will not take place that otherwise might have. 

Telling the truth is never wrong! But exposing the faults of the principle character of such a massive charity.... is not inherently a good thing. I guess we all want our 15 minutes of fame. LA paid for, and continues to pay for his... but countless cancer patients are paying for Betsy's.


----------



## biker jk (Dec 5, 2012)

My understanding is that Armstrong made a large donation (or more likely it came from Livestrong) to the hospital so you will never hear the doctors present at the confession tell the truth.


----------



## Tomahawk (May 4, 2012)

Of course Betsy's lying! She's a... well... okay, she isn't fat - but she's still a crazy b***h right?


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

*“Was Betsy lying?”*



Dave Cutter said:


> Not sure the doctor really addressed that so much.... as just saying the good out weighted the bad.
> 
> “_He cheated in a sport_,” Einhorn said. “_He didn’t murder anyone, he didn’t steal money from anyone. He’s still a hero for people in the cancer community, and let’s be honest, if he didn’t dope, he would not have won seven straight Tour de Frances, because so many people were doping at that time. If he didn’t dope, and finished 17th, there wouldn’t have been a Livestrong foundation that helped millions of people with cancer.”_
> 
> ...


Sigh. Livestrong doesn't give anything to cancer research and hasn't for years. They provide counseling services, period. If people want to give to that cause, they will do that whether its to Livestrong or to another org that actually does underwrite research.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

Dave Cutter said:


> Not sure the doctor really addressed that so much.... as just saying the good out weighted the bad.
> 
> “_He cheated in a sport_,” Einhorn said. “_He didn’t murder anyone, he didn’t steal money from anyone. He’s still a hero for people in the cancer community, and let’s be honest, if he didn’t dope, he would not have won seven straight Tour de Frances, because so many people were doping at that time. If he didn’t dope, and finished 17th, there wouldn’t have been a Livestrong foundation that helped millions of people with cancer.”_
> 
> ...


Livestrong does cancer awareness, not research. Not all of that 500 million goes to cancer patients. A good chunk of it goes to conferences, lawyers and the like. 

I'm not saying its a corrupt charity. Rather I'm saying if you're going to donate, what do you think is the best use of your money? The best way to help people with cancer? 

Lance Armstrong and Livestrong | Lance Armstrong | OutsideOnline.com


----------



## Beck (Jun 8, 2011)

I don't think Betsey is lying. Lance would have sued her if she was. This doctor sounds like he is justifying taking money from a liar and cheater. If you notice the doctor said that HE never was told. Anyway, isn't it against HIPPA to disclose this type of information?


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

I didn't think steroid use caused cancer. I've always heard that it made cancer spread much more rapidly if you are in the beginning stages.


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

iliveonnitro said:


> I didn't think steroid use caused cancer. I've always heard that it made cancer spread much more rapidly if you are in the beginning stages.


This is such a strawman argument. Armstrong was taking other drugs besides steroids, IGF-1 for example, that clearly would be hugely contra-indicated for a patient with cancer. The argument about steroids not causing the cancer is irrelevant because the doctor didn't see Armstrong until he actually HAD cancer. So the steroids become EXTREMELY important at that point for the exact reason you noted. Steroids depress the immune system. It's absurd to suggest using them wouldn't be relevant to his care.



Beck said:


> Anyway, isn't it against HIPPA to disclose this type of information?


No, but it would be against HIPAA!


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

HIPAA still allows disclosure of certain information during criminal and civil investigations.


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

spade2you said:


> HIPAA still allows disclosure of certain information during criminal and civil investigations.


To the police and prosecutor yes. Not to the general public. There is however a six year statute of limitation for HIPAA, and clearly this was way before that.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

DrSmile said:


> To the police and prosecutor yes. Not to the general public. There is however a six year statute of limitation for HIPAA, and clearly this was way before that.


Are you sure about this? Wouldn't the statute of limitations start when a Doctor disclosed confidential information? Like, you have six years to file a complaint? I think that's a bit different from after six years, a Doctor can blab all your secrets.


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

spade2you said:


> HIPAA still allows disclosure of certain information during criminal and civil investigations.


Medical records can be obtained under court subpoena. One party moves for production of the records. The court issues a subpoena. Then it's up to the keeper of the records to appear to quash the subpoena, if they decide that they don't want to produce them. In most cases, that's a wasted effort, so the records are routinely produced. The best that the keeper of the records can hope for is that the court orders that they be kept under seal in the clerk's office, so they aren't disclosed to the public/press. General medical records aren't usually as sensitive as those from psychiatric institutions or substance abuse treatment facilities.

My question would be, how relevant would those records be in the SCA suit? As I understand that litigation, the dispute was over whether LA was a 7 time TdF winner and thus entitled to the bonus. Whether he doped prior to winning any yellow jersey would seem to be irrelevant to the subject matter. Even if it was relevant, how material would it be? His position that, hey, I had cancer once, why would I continue to keep putting that stuff in my body would have made sense to the average juror if the case reached that stage. If I recall correctly, his lawyers stipulated that Stephanie McIlvaine was present and heard what was stated in the room, after LeMond produced the tape of his conversation with her. SCA still had to pay.


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

Bluenote said:


> Are you sure about this? Wouldn't the statute of limitations start when a Doctor disclosed confidential information? Like, you have six years to file a complaint? I think that's a bit different from after six years, a Doctor can blab all your secrets.


I'm not a lawyer but the way I understand it the six year limit is in place for record keeping limitation purposes. You only have 180 days to file a claim after you became aware of a HIPAA breach.

In any case, I think it's a fairly irrelevant sidetrack in the big picture...


----------



## Handbrake (May 29, 2012)

DrSmile said:


> I think maybe the doctor is choosing to tell a certain version of events that may benefit his professional career (he's connected to Livestrong in several ways).


I think it is a continuing hilarity that you idiots think one of the world's top oncologists needs Lance's foundation to prop up his career, to the extent he'd lie on record about what went on with a patient. Einhorn could write his own checks at any research hospital on the planet.



spade2you said:


> I don't work in oncology, thankfully.


Now that we've gotten the obvious out of the way, it might be nice to clarify that some amateur's personal feelings about what might possibly have caused what is a long long way form establishing any sort of causality. 



DrSmile said:


> In any case, I think it's a fairly irrelevant sidetrack in the big picture...


Only sane person in the thread.


----------



## Fogdweller (Mar 26, 2004)

I think it's one of the reasons Lance didn't acknowledge the hospital room conversation ever taking place. If the conversation did happen and was not entered into his medical record, then a discovery process could subject his doctor to a board review. The only thing Betsy ever wanted was for Lance to tell the world that she was telling the truth but he chose to "lie down" on the matter. 

It did happen. Stephanie McIlvain was in the room and confirmed the meeting during a recorded conversation with Greg Lemond. "If I was subpoenaed, I would. … I'm not going to lie. … I was in that room. I heard it. … My whole concern is my loyalties to Oakley. … They say I was never in there. And I know I was in there. You know, I totally know I was in there."

At the time, she really needed the job with Oakley because of medical expenses due to having a son with autism.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

Handbrake said:


> I think it is a continuing hilarity that you idiots think one of the world's top oncologists needs Lance's foundation to prop up his career, to the extent he'd lie on record about what went on with a patient. Einhorn could write his own checks at any research hospital on the planet.
> 
> 
> > Agreed, it doesn't seem like he needs Armstrong.
> ...


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

I'm pretty it's possibly to waive HIPAA privacy by making certain public statements.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Local Hero said:


> I'm pretty it's possibly to waive HIPAA privacy by making certain public statements.


There's this argument and he made no statement to the validity. I would assume a court would want to verify with his doctor if it went to court, which it probably won't.

I still LOL how in all the interviews she doesn't seem to mention much about her husband using the stuff....er I mean how he _only_ used EPO 6 times and had waffles for breakfast.


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

Lance and the Truth - Four Corners

Aussie interview with Frankie and Betsy from last night.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

*Re: “Was Betsy lying?”*



Fireform said:


> Sigh. Livestrong doesn't give anything to cancer research and hasn't for years. They provide counseling services, period. If people want to give to that cause, they will do that whether its to Livestrong or to another org that actually does underwrite research.


They also help coordinate and network cancer sufferers with health professionals. I have a family member that wanted to see a world ranked specialist. Their calls weren't even answered. Livestrong got involved and an appointment was quickly scheduled. 

But yeah it is more of a support and awareness program now. You would actually be surprised how many of these charities exist now. World TEAM Sports comes to mind as another.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Betsy weren't lying. She was telling the truth.

But as of this moment, as far as I'm concerned, her time regarding the Armstrong saga has expired. Armstrong has admitted that he was a doper, a liar, and a cheat. That is all that really matters. I no longer care for what Betsy has to say at this point. Her point was well taken.

Now as far as Livestrong, I think it's still a great program. Honestly, it does more good than harm to society, no? Oh it "may" have some controversies regarding "monetary donations". But can anyone list 1 non-profit organization, or any organization, on this earth that has not been involved in some sort of money/donation controversies. That's right, all the religious organizations, the humanitarian orgs, even the United Nations... all have controversies regarding money at some point. Should we just kill them all off?

This is not Utopia we're living in.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Local Hero said:


> I'm pretty it's possibly to waive HIPAA privacy by making certain public statements.


No, it's not. HIPAA is about medical professionals and establishments protecting your medical information. If you want to release your medical information to the public, that's fine. But that doesn't waive or release any HIPAA obligations. 

The HIPAA act passed in 1996, but the deadline for compliance wasn't until 2003. It's not likely that any hospital was in compliance in 1996, so it's irrelevant to a discussion about Armstrong.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

LA pretty much alluded to her telling the truth and offered up an apology via phone call to her saying that he was sorry for telling everyone she was a liar all these years and crazy and a b****......but not fat.


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

rydbyk said:


> LA pretty alluded to her telling the truth and offered up an apology via phone call to her saying that he was sorry for telling everyone she was a liar all these years and crazy and a b****......but not fat.


Actually, both her and Frankie sounded more than a little conciliatory towards him in that Four Corners interview.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

Like Betsy and Frankie feel a need to apologize to LA? Hmm.. I missed that part.

I was referring to what LA said in the Orpah interview fwiw..


----------



## Robert1 (Mar 27, 2012)

Good interview. I have no doubt that the hospital incident occurred, and it's pretty clear as they said in the interview LA doesn't discuss it because he's trying to protect people.

What I also found interesting is that Frankie said he was shocked when he heard LA admit to doping in the hospital room. I call BS on this and believe he was playing the shocked role in front of Betsy that day when she confronted him about whether he was doping. Why would he be so shocked when he himself admitted to doping as early as 1995 when on the Motorola team? I'm sure being friends they both knew each other had doped. 



The Tedinator said:


> Lance and the Truth - Four Corners
> 
> Aussie interview with Frankie and Betsy from last night.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Robert1 said:


> Good interview. I have no doubt that the hospital incident occurred, and it's pretty clear as they said in the interview LA doesn't discuss it because he's trying to protect people.
> 
> What I also found interesting is that Frankie said he was shocked when he heard LA admit to doping in the hospital room. I call BS on this and believe he was playing the shocked role in front of Betsy that day when she confronted him about whether he was doping. Why would he be so shocked when he himself admitted to doping as early as 1995 when on the Motorola team? I'm sure being friends they both knew each other had doped.


Oh Frankie knew LA was doping alright. But Frankie also knew if he didn't pretend to act "shocked", Betsy would cut his balls off. Betsy is head of household.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

aclinjury said:


> Oh Frankie knew LA was doping alright. But Frankie also knew if he didn't pretend to act "shocked", Betsy would cut his balls off. Betsy is head of household.


I fear her. 

Just remember, Frankie only did EPO 6 times. :thumbsup:


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

rydbyk said:


> Like Betsy and Frankie feel a need to apologize to LA? Hmm.. I missed that part.
> 
> I was referring to what LA said in the Orpah interview fwiw..


Not what I meant. It's like there are mutual olive branches in play. Betsy doesn't sound like she wants to take out his other ball with a meat cleaver any more, at least there. It's like in a weird way, they feel sorry for him. She used the expression "he was used" a few times, people made lots of money off him, and so on. Really took me by surprise, considering the fit she threw on Anderson Cooper's show.

And yeah, I get the idea that she calls the shots in that house. Oh boy, does she. :lol:


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

mpre53 said:


> Not what I meant. It's like there are mutual olive branches in play. Betsy doesn't sound like she wants to take out his other ball with a meat cleaver any more, at least there. It's like in a weird way, they feel sorry for him. She used the expression "he was used" a few times, people made lots of money off him, and so on. Really took me by surprise, considering the fit she threw on Anderson Cooper's show.
> 
> And yeah, I get the idea that she calls the shots in that house. Oh boy, does she. :lol:


Yep. I picked up on that too. She sounds like she is more pissed at the Verdruggems and Fat Pats of the cycling world now, not to mention the fawning media. I also liked what she said about feeling that Lance was sincere in his phone call apologies, based on the fact that he didn't make calls to everyone, just a select few. We need to remember, Lance, Kik, Frankie, and Betsy were good friends. They were at the hospital to support Lance. That is what has made the long fight so bitter, because it was so personal.


----------



## Dresden (May 26, 2009)

I think Betsy is telling the truth. Armstrong is trying to thread the needle with his response about her. Armstrong not wanting to drag the people who saved his life into this mess is about the only thing left that I can respect him for.


----------



## wabasso (May 18, 2012)

Dave Cutter said:


> Not sure the doctor really addressed that so much.... as just saying the good out weighted the bad.
> 
> “_He cheated in a sport_,” Einhorn said. “_He didn’t murder anyone, he didn’t steal money from anyone. He’s still a hero for people in the cancer community, and let’s be honest, if he didn’t dope, he would not have won seven straight Tour de Frances, because so many people were doping at that time. If he didn’t dope, and finished 17th, there wouldn’t have been a Livestrong foundation that helped millions of people with cancer.”_
> 
> ...


I wish people would get over the "cancer research" line.

Livestrong never raised, or used, 1 penny for _cancer research,_not 1 cent. they did use money raised for "cancer awareness" which means telling people to think positive thoughts and directing them to what agency to phone for actual help. And jet fuel. Lots of jet fuel.


----------



## Beck (Jun 8, 2011)

I think the reason that Betsey is still so upset that Lance didn't admit the hospital incident is that incident is what Lance used to try to bury her and make her look like a mentally ill person. I would bet that 99.9% of us have no idea what it would feel like to be in her shoes when the Lance machine went after her.


----------



## RRRoubaix (Aug 27, 2008)

Dresden said:


> I think Betsy is telling the truth. Armstrong is trying to thread the needle with his response about her. Armstrong not wanting to drag the people who saved his life into this mess is about the only thing left that I can respect him for.


I'm not sure you're allowed to post such heresy in the Doping Forum!
J/K.
Interesting thought... thanks for the head-check.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Einhorn was not yet Armstrong's doctor at the time of the incident so it is no surprise that he is not aware......Perhaps he is aware of what happen to Lance's missing hospital records? Only a small portion of them were turned over under subpoena during the SCA case.

A key element of Armstrong's cancer was it's rapid spread. Armstrong even writes in his book about how shocked the doctors were that it spread so fast to his lungs and brain. It would be expected to ask if the patient is taking such cellular multipliers like Testosterone and HGH.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

*Moderators Note*



Handbrake said:


> I think it is a continuing hilarity that you idiots think one of the world's top oncologists needs Lance's foundation to prop up his career, to the extent he'd lie on record about what went on with a patient. Einhorn could write his own checks at any research hospital on the planet.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Tone it down on the insults. Infraction this time, temp ban is next.


----------



## kbwh (May 28, 2010)

spade2you said:


> Just remember, Frankie only did EPO 6 times. :thumbsup:


Wouldn't that do you for a couple of seasons?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

kbwh said:


> Wouldn't that do you for a couple of seasons?


Not enough EPO in the world to turn me into a decent racer.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

wabasso said:


> I wish people would get over the "cancer research" line.
> 
> Livestrong never raised, or used, 1 penny for _cancer research,_not 1 cent. they did use money raised for "cancer awareness" which means telling people to think positive thoughts and directing them to what agency to phone for actual help. And jet fuel. Lots of jet fuel.


True, people need to stop with the saying "Livestrong supports cancer research".

Livestrong is mainly a support & awareness organization. BUT... we should also not underestimate the power of hope. Just the thought of knowing that there is a hope to survive (because you know that others before you have done it).. this sort of support and hope sometimes is more powerful than the treatment itself. It inspires a will to live in a dying patient. Very powerful stuff.

Cheating, lying, manipulation... Armstrong has many flaws. But I find that he has a strong will, the will to fight, and people see this as a good thing. Perhaps this is the reason why there are so many people divided when it comes to Armstrong. Yes, they see a cheater, a liar, a manipulator, etc.. but they also see a guy with a determination, a strong will, and this is also an inspiring quality for most people. Armstrong is like a complex Shakespeare character, a character with lots of both good and bad things about him.

I think it would be a great shame if Livestrong were to go away.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

I agree that Betsy is overplaying the importance of what was said in a hospital room 15+ years ago. "It all goes back to what was said in the hospital room" etc. She makes it sound as if what transpired there was a keystone to the saga.


----------



## BGEPizza (Sep 28, 2009)

aclinjury said:


> ...Perhaps this is the reason why there are so many people divided when it comes to Armstrong....


Not so divided any more.

America's Most Disliked Athletes - Forbes


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

Here's a follow up. The Andreus say Dr. Einhorn wasn't the Dictor present when Lance made his hospital room doping confession. 

Lance Armstrong Update: Noted Indy Oncologist Was Not Present During 1996 Doping Confession - Circle Citizen - Indianapolis Monthly


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Bluenote said:


> Here's a follow up. The Andreus say Dr. Einhorn wasn't the Dictor present when Lance made his hospital room doping confession.
> 
> Lance Armstrong Update: Noted Indy Oncologist Was Not Present During 1996 Doping Confession - Circle Citizen - Indianapolis Monthly


......but he did get a nice $1,500,000 "Donation" from Livestrong for his testimony


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> ......but he did get a nice $1,500,000 "Donation" from Livestrong for his testimony


Doctor Einhorn didn't get anything. Indiana University got it. Not the same thing. 

I think it is 'drawing an unproven conclusion' to say Dr. Einhorn got the money for testimony. His CV is amazing - he's done groundbreaking work in curing testicular cancer. It's not unreasonable that IU got the donation to support his research, no hidden agenda.

Big money donations happen in Medicine. Look at have Koch Cancer Center, the Broad Institute, etc...


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

Bluenote said:


> Doctor Einhorn didn't get anything. Indiana University got it. Not the same thing.
> 
> I think it is 'drawing an unproven conclusion' to say Dr. Einhorn got the money for testimony. His CV is amazing - he's done groundbreaking work in curing testicular cancer. It's not unreasonable that IU got the donation to support his research, no hidden agenda.
> 
> Big money donations happen in Medicine. Look at have Koch Cancer Center, the Broad Institute, etc...


Charitable monetary gifts are usually given with an understanding that it will be used by the person it's given in honor of. As I work in a medical institution such as the one you speak of, I can tell you that the reason the money is given to the school instead of the individual is because it's tax-deductible. This means the contributor will get a tax break and the institution, typically a nonprofit, won't pay any tax either. Aside from that it essentially IS giving money to the person, as he/she can usually control exactly how the money is spent. Saying Dr. Einhorn didn't get anything is just a blatantly misleading falsehood. 

I'm not saying he's lying but let's stay real.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

I am staying real. Seeing as the Andreus have already said Doctor Einhorn wasn't there, he isn't really involved in 'Hospital Gate.' I just don't see proof that he lied under oath for cash. I mean, that is a very serious allegation. 

Something happened in the Hospital, I don't doubt that. I just haven't seen enough proof to say Dr. X perjured themselves or person Y altered the Medical Records.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Bluenote said:


> I am staying real. Seeing as the Andreus have already said Doctor Einhorn wasn't there, he isn't really involved in 'Hospital Gate.' I just don't see proof that he lied under oath for cash. I mean, that is a very serious allegation.
> 
> Something happened in the Hospital, I don't doubt that. I just haven't seen enough proof to say Dr. X perjured themselves or person Y altered the Medical Records.


Do you believe he never asked lance what kind of drugs he was taking? Lance even wrote in his book that his doctors were surprised how rapidly his cancer spread. Most would be surprised if such a famous doctor did not explore the possible reasons for this rapid spread. Cellular multipliers like HGH and Testosterone.

Einhorn directly financially benefited from Livestrong....but this had no influence his testimony :thumbsup:


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

I think less black and white and more shades of gray. 

I think there is a difference between saying he had motive to lie and saying, yes, it's certain he lied.

I think it's a very serious allegation to say he perjured himself for cash.

Personally, I'm not comfortable hanging such a serious allegation on circumstantial evidence. 

But I am disappointed that IU hasn't said more to distance them self from Armstrong and condemn doping.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Bluenote said:


> I think less black and white and more shades of gray.
> 
> I think there is a difference between saying he had motive to lie and saying, yes, it's certain he lied.
> 
> ...


I wonder which it is, he lied for his gravy train or he is an incompetent doctor. Not sure which is worse. lance does have a history of "donations" to those who kept the myth alive

Funny, looks like that article was taken down.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

I think it's a stretch to call a Doctor who developed treatments that greatly reduced testicular cancer mortality rates "incompetent."

Very serious allegations you are making.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

*Re: “Was Betsy lying?”*



Bluenote said:


> I think it's a stretch to call a Doctor who developed treatments that greatly reduced testicular cancer mortality rates "incompetent."
> 
> Very serious allegations you are making.


He is assuming all Dr.'s bother to check that their patients may be ingesting I guess. Thus he either didn't want to stop the money by speaking out or he is incompetent. If we expand this idea though beyond PEDs to simple substance abuse...good damn there are a metric butt ton of either corrupt or incompetent doctors out there.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Bluenote said:


> I think it's a stretch to call a Doctor who developed treatments that greatly reduced testicular cancer mortality rates "incompetent."
> 
> Very serious allegations you are making.


He can be great at research but bad at asking obvious questions.....or maybe just forgetful

Speaking of serious allegations the good doctor is inferring that Betsy and Frankie are liars. Called their claims “Utter nonsense.”

Lance sure does make a lot of donations, and attempted donations, to people he would like to help perpetuate his myth


----------



## alllyc (Jan 19, 2013)

It might be


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Lance sure does make a lot of donations, and attempted donations, to people he would like to help perpetuate his myth


This last bit I have been reassessing in light of all the interviews with South Africans I was hearing on the BBC tonight regarding the drama surrounding the arrest of the "Blade Runner." I do not claim this to be my idea either, one of the commentators raised the issue.

I think way more people than Lance and his inner circle are responsible for the perpetuation of the myth. Lets be honest. As a society most people want their athletes to be larger than life, almost super human. Add in the recovery from what could well have been fatal cancer, participating in the Olympics as a double amputee, coming from a violent environment and/or abject poverty and the story becomes mythic on it's own. People then want it to stay mythic. If a politician or a businessman gifted regulators with large sums of cash for "enforcement" purposes or "research" the press would be all over it saying "graft?" and Jon Q Public would be SCREAMING for someone to locked up. If the same person started bad mouthing seemingly nice people in the press and acting like a bully in and out of the court room, they would be torn apart on the morning talk shows and in Op Ed pieces.

However in this era that we live in, our heroes and myths are no longer great warriors or leaders but athletes. For some reason society at large seems incapable of looking at them the way we do other gainfully employed people. We can't just say "well Bob over there was good at math so he is an accountant, Dave over there is good with a base ball bat so he plays ball." Society wants, hell demands that athletes be role models, heroes and that the best of them be heroes of mythic proportions. So when they do shady crap society lets them get away with it until it is no bleeding obvious that only a blind, deaf and dumb quadriplegic would deny the reality.

This is not an attempt to absolve Armstrong of the wrongs he did, only to point out that people like Armstrong get away with it for as long as they do because the majority of the people as a unit chose to allow it.


----------



## Cyclin Dan (Sep 24, 2011)

Me and 3 buddies registered under a new team name for Rockwell Relay this year (520 miles, 30k feet of climbing...great ride). 

Our team name? Betsy was right. 

It's got a few laughs so far.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

badge118 said:


> He is assuming all Dr.'s bother to check that their patients may be ingesting I guess. Thus he either didn't want to stop the money by speaking out or he is incompetent. If we expand this idea though beyond PEDs to simple substance abuse...good damn there are a metric butt ton of either corrupt or incompetent doctors out there.


I don't think either you or I are in a position to judge if Dr. Einhorn's not asking about PEDs makes him incompetent. (Unless you are a Doctor).

He would have an opinion about what is medically relevant, we have a different opinion - but he is the MD, afterall. 

Or to put it another way, I've had a couple of surgeries / health issues. The Dictors take a pretty full health history. But they took a limited drug history. They just really cared about what was in my bloodstream at that moment, not that I'd smoked some in college. 

If Testosterone or HGH caused testicular cancer, or fast spreading testicular cancer, there likely would be shitload of athletes with it, which doesn't seem to be the case. 

Again, I think it's shades of gray. It's possible he is lying. It's possible he's telling the truth, I just haven't seen enough evidence to lay a perjury accusation at his feet.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

badge118 said:


> He is assuming all Dr.'s bother to check that their patients may be ingesting I guess. Thus he either didn't want to stop the money by speaking out or he is incompetent. If we expand this idea though beyond PEDs to simple substance abuse...good damn there are a metric butt ton of either corrupt or incompetent doctors out there.





badge118 said:


> This last bit I have been reassessing in light of all the interviews with South Africans I was hearing on the BBC tonight regarding the drama surrounding the arrest of the "Blade Runner." I do not claim this to be my idea either, one of the commentators raised the issue.
> 
> I think way more people than Lance and his inner circle are responsible for the perpetuation of the myth. Lets be honest. As a society most people want their athletes to be larger than life, almost super human. Add in the recovery from what could well have been fatal cancer, participating in the Olympics as a double amputee, coming from a violent environment and/or abject poverty and the story becomes mythic on it's own. People then want it to stay mythic. If a politician or a businessman gifted regulators with large sums of cash for "enforcement" purposes or "research" the press would be all over it saying "graft?" and Jon Q Public would be SCREAMING for someone to locked up. If the same person started bad mouthing seemingly nice people in the press and acting like a bully in and out of the court room, they would be torn apart on the morning talk shows and in Op Ed pieces.
> 
> ...


I don't think society demands athletes be role models. Rather, I think the marketing folks want to squeeze as much cash out of sports as possible. 

By pushing storylines and image, they think they reach more fans. 

Take a look at Tim Tebow. He's a third string quarterback who can't throw a decent spiral. But, as a decent looking, well spoken Christian - he could be marketing gold. 

So the press reports on his every move. They endlessly hype all his positives. You hear little about his negatives. How many other third string qbs can you name?

I agree that athletes get endlessly hyped. Behind closed doors, I'm sure a good number of them are rotten people.

Penn State shows us how far people will go to protect athletics.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

*Re: “Was Betsy lying?”*



Bluenote said:


> I don't think either you or I are in a position to judge if Dr. Einhorn's not asking about PEDs makes him incompetent. (Unless you are a Doctor).
> 
> He would have an opinion about what is medically relevant, we have a different opinion - but he is the MD, afterall.
> 
> ...


I wasn't making a judgement on this doctor. I was only saying I have called more than one doctor to say "oh btw your patient is selling their oxys to buy street drugs to self medicate" etc and they seemed legitimately clueless. Doctors are not infallible diagnosticians.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Bluenote said:


> If Testosterone or HGH caused testicular cancer, or fast spreading testicular cancer, there likely would be shitload of athletes with it, which doesn't seem to be the case.


It certainly does appear to be the case that HGH can increase cancer risk an spread. 

Suppression of human growth hormone may ward off cancer, diabetes - Los Angeles Times

as does EPO
EPO: Lighting the Fires of Cancer (HemoDoc, From Doctor to Patient)


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It certainly does appear to be the case that HGH can increase cancer risk an spread.
> 
> Suppression of human growth hormone may ward off cancer, diabetes - Los Angeles Times
> 
> ...


I can tell ya the 2nd article has some BS in it. Dialysis units need to push higher doses of EPO or we'd be constantly transfusing dialysis patients. Their lack of renal function means less natural EPO production and chronic anemia. It's simply more cost effective and safer to use EPO vs PRBCs.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

spade2you said:


> I can tell ya the 2nd article has some BS in it. Dialysis units need to push higher doses of EPO or we'd be constantly transfusing dialysis patients. Their lack of renal function means less natural EPO production and chronic anemia. It's simply more cost effective and safer to use EPO vs PRBCs.


The risks of EPO are well documented

Recombinant human erythropoietins and can... [J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006] - PubMed - NCBI
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/04/briefing/4037b2_04.pdf

Theses risks were key part of the Amgen's recent settlement

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/19/business/amgen-agrees-to-pay-762-million-in-drug-case.html?_r=0



> use of Aranesp by those nonchemotherapy cancer patients had actually *increased the risk of death*





> studies show that high doses can lead to blood clots and the *worsening of cancer.*


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> The risks of EPO are well documented
> 
> Recombinant human erythropoietins and can... [J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006] - PubMed - NCBI
> http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/04/briefing/4037b2_04.pdf
> ...


Unless you're about to whip out your professional credentials, please don't argue about dialysis patients with me. I'm at a big enough hospital in a big enough city to see a lot of dialysis patients routinely and for many years. 

I know you can find interw3b studies just as well as the next guy, but I do this for a living.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

Both if those documents are at least 10 years newer than when Armstrong had his cancer. 

I don't pretend to be qualified to evaluate medical data. But it doesn't seem fair to say 'well, this study done in 2006 shows Dr. X was malfeasant back in 1996.' Doctors didn't have access to those studies at the time, so they aren't really relevant to the point at hand.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

spade2you said:


> Unless you're about to whip out your professional credentials, please don't argue about dialysis patients with me. I'm at a big enough hospital in a big enough city to see a lot of dialysis patients routinely and for many years.
> 
> I know you can find interw3b studies just as well as the next guy, but I do this for a living.





Try to stay on topic and not get into another pissing match

EPO ahd HGH, if used incorrectly, increase the risk of cancer. This is a well documented. If you disagree then please present us with evidence to support your position


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Bluenote said:


> Both if those documents are at least 10 years newer than when Armstrong had his cancer.
> 
> I don't pretend to be qualified to evaluate medical data. But it doesn't seem fair to say 'well, this study done in 2006 shows Dr. X was malfeasant back in 1996.' Doctors didn't have access to those studies at the time, so they aren't really relevant to the point at hand.


Cellular multipliers, like HGH and Test, have been known to increase cell production for decades. Maybe if Einhorn had asked a few questions EPO negative effects may have been known sooner?


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

Bluenote said:


> Doctor Einhorn didn't get anything. Indiana University got it. Not the same thing.
> 
> I think it is 'drawing an unproven conclusion' to say Dr. Einhorn got the money for testimony. His CV is amazing - he's done groundbreaking work in curing testicular cancer. It's not unreasonable that IU got the donation to support his research, no hidden agenda.
> 
> Big money donations happen in Medicine. Look at have Koch Cancer Center, the Broad Institute, etc...


You are right, Johnny Depp gave a 2 million dollar donation to the hospital in the UK that saved his daughter's life. No hidden agenda there.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

love4himies said:


> You are right, Johnny Depp gave a 2 million dollar donation to the hospital in the UK that saved his daughter's life. No hidden agenda there.


Did Johnny's hospital insure that medical records went missing when they were subpoenaed for a court case?


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

There is a big gap between second guessing him after the fact (hindsight is 20/20) and saying his actions at the time are clear evidence of malfeasance or gross incompetence. 

I just haven't seen evidence to lay such serious allegations against him. 

As an aside, I have said on other threads my biggest issue with doping is the health effects. We all pay the price if some high school kid fries his liver taking PEDs to make the baseball team.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Bluenote said:


> As an aside, I have said on other threads my biggest issue with doping is the health effects. We all pay the price if some high school kid fries his liver taking PEDs to make the baseball team.


Agreed. Or when a world famous doctor excuses an athletes doping because he has "Done a lot of good"

`


> `If he didn't do doping, he would not have been competitive in his sport,'' Einhorn said. ``There would have been no foundation. There would have been no cancer survivorship talk, if he had not entered the Tour de France, or finished 17th or 18th.


Doping is fine if you sell lots of Nikes


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Try to stay on topic and not get into another pissing match
> 
> EPO ahd HGH, if used incorrectly, increase the risk of cancer. This is a well documented. If you disagree then please present us with evidence to support your position


I am not arguing against HGH. We routinely use 10,000-40,000 units 3 times weekly with hemodialysis patients. 

Now show to me that this kind of EPO use is causing cancer in my dialysis patients because we're not seeing it and we're using pretty high doses. 

If you choose to continue to debate, I'm more than willing to discuss credentials. Again, this is what I do for a living. I didn't graduate from Google University.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

spade2you said:


> I am not arguing against HGH. We routinely use 10,000-40,000 units 3 times weekly with hemodialysis patients.
> 
> Now show to me that this kind of EPO use is causing cancer in my dialysis patients because we're not seeing it and we're using pretty high doses.
> 
> If you choose to continue to debate, I'm more than willing to discuss credentials. Again, this is what I do for a living. I didn't graduate from Google University.


We get it, you are super smart. Much smarter then all of us. Genius. 

But in case some do not believe you are as super duper smart as you claim could you provide something that disproves the multiple studies to show the misuse of EPO increases cancer risk? I am sure that Amgen is eager to hear from you as it was a key part of their $762 Million settlement. 

You are a pharmacist right? Have you ever read the warning that comes with EPO?



> WARNING: ESAs INCREASE THE RISK OF DEATH, MYOCARIAL INFARCTION, STROKE, VENOUS THROMBOEMBOLISM, THROMBOSIS OF VASCULAR ACCESS AND *TUMOR PROGRESSION OR RECURRANCE*


 Epogen/Procrit (epoetin alfa) and Aranesp (darbepoetin alfa)

Quick, contact the FDA and let them know they have it all wrong. You haven't seen it so it must not be happening. :thumbsup:


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

I agree that there has been a lot of goalpost moving. It's gone from Armstrong never doped to everyone else was doing it. 

If Livestrong never existed, maybe there would just be more donations to the Pan Mass Challenge, the American Cancer Society, etc.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> We get it, you are super smart. Much smarter then all of us. Genius.
> 
> But in case some do not believe you are as super duper smart as you claim could you provide something that disproves the multiple studies to show the misuse of EPO increases cancer risk? I am sure that Amgen is eager to hear from you as it was a key part of their $762 Million settlement.
> 
> ...


What is the alternative to EPO in dialysis patients? Google it.


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

Bluenote said:


> I agree that there has been a lot of goalpost moving. It's gone from Armstrong never doped to everyone else was doing it.
> 
> If Livestrong never existed, maybe there would just be more donations to the Pan Mass Challenge, the American Cancer Society, etc.


I'm still wondering whether he got his usual appearance fee for riding in the 2011 PMC, and if so, who paid it? That particular charity prides itself on channeling 100% of all funds raised to Dana-Farber.

He did the 112 mile leg on the first day, riding with John Kerry. Maybe Kerry got him to do it gratis?


----------



## Robert1 (Mar 27, 2012)

You guys are both debating over something that a doctor is going to care less about from a practical standpoint. How does knowing the possible, theoretical cause of the cancer alter the course of treatment? It may be interesting to a researcher, but treatment is based on the current facts like type, severity, location of the cancer, not what theoretically caused it. Asking a patient if he lives under high tension power lines, received more than 20 cat scans in their lives, grew up around second hand smoke...(list of infinite causes of cancer) may all be interesting from an academic point of view to a doctor, but not necessary to know to prescribe the appropriate course of treatment. Maybe an oncologist can step in here.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Robert1 said:


> You guys are both debating over something that a doctor is going to care less about from a practical standpoint. How does knowing the possible, theoretical cause of the cancer alter the course of treatment? It may be interesting to a researcher, but treatment is based on the current facts like type, severity, location of the cancer, not what theoretically caused it. Asking a patient if he lives under high tension power lines, received more than 20 cat scans in their lives, grew up around second hand smoke...(list of infinite causes of cancer) may all be interesting from an academic point of view to a doctor, but not necessary to know to prescribe the appropriate course of treatment. Maybe an oncologist can step in here.


I'm questioning The Dr., if he's really even a doctor for more than implying that big pharma and physicians are being crooked with EPO use. Having worked in a real hospital for quite some time, these allegations are simply false. 

He can say whatever about cyclists, but I'll draw the line at my job. Besides, it's fun to point out that people are just pulling up interw3b articles when it's something you do for a living.


----------



## multirider (Nov 5, 2007)

Robert1 said:


> You guys are both debating over something that a doctor is going to care less about from a practical standpoint. How does knowing the possible, theoretical cause of the cancer alter the course of treatment? It may be interesting to a researcher, but treatment is based on the current facts like type, severity, location of the cancer, not what theoretically caused it. Asking a patient if he lives under high tension power lines, received more than 20 cat scans in their lives, grew up around second hand smoke...(list of infinite causes of cancer) may all be interesting from an academic point of view to a doctor, but not necessary to know to prescribe the appropriate course of treatment. Maybe an oncologist can step in here.


Doctors frequently ask these types of questions so they can follow up with "you may want to stop doing that because it is likely contributing to the condition that is killing you". Initial treatment focuses on restoring a patient to the best possible health, but most doctors try to help a patient remain healthy in the future.


----------



## Robert1 (Mar 27, 2012)

I get that part of it, but this whole debate began because falsetti and some believe that the doctor would be incompetent if he did not ask LA about the drugs since the drugs cause cancer. You guys are debating whether they cause cancer or not. But that's neither here nor there. My point is there's no real good reason he had to have asked that question in the first place even if they do cause cancer. And by the way, I don't know about EPO, but there's more than one study claiming that hGH causes cancer and is what Lyle Alzado claims caused his brain tumor way back when.



spade2you said:


> I'm questioning The Dr., if he's really even a doctor for more than implying that big pharma and physicians are being crooked with EPO use. Having worked in a real hospital for quite some time, these allegations are simply false.
> 
> He can say whatever about cyclists, but I'll draw the line at my job. Besides, it's fun to point out that people are just pulling up interw3b articles when it's something you do for a living.


----------



## Robert1 (Mar 27, 2012)

In some cases yes like lung cancer and smoking. But what about breast cancer, testicular cancer, brain tumor, etc... cancers that are generally not thought of to be caused by one's own doings? Is a doctor really going to go through an infinite list of potential cancer causing questions when it really doesn't matter. Of course you do know that there are studies showing that cycling can cause testicular cancer. Maybe he should have asked LA whether he bikes, haha. That would have been more apt.



multirider said:


> Doctors frequently ask these types of questions so they can follow up with "you may want to stop doing that because it is likely contributing to the condition that is killing you". Initial treatment focuses on restoring a patient to the best possible health, but most doctors try to help a patient remain healthy in the future.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Robert1 said:


> I get that part of it, but this whole debate began because falsetti and some believe that the doctor would be incompetent if he did not ask LA about the drugs since the drugs cause cancer. You guys are debating whether they cause cancer or not. But that's neither here nor there. My point is there's no real good reason he had to have asked that question in the first place even if they do cause cancer. And by the way, I don't know about EPO, but there's more than one study claiming that hGH causes cancer and is what Lyle Alzado claims caused his brain tumor way back when.


Fair enough, I don't like the implication that my kind is shady for using the copious amounts. Given the sheer amount we use, one would expect to see more adverse reactions, which I simply don't see in that patient population. 

I did give him the chance to offer alterantives, but haven't seen any offered at this point.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Bluenote said:


> I agree that there has been a lot of goalpost moving. It's gone from Armstrong never doped to everyone else was doing it.


Yes. And from the opposing side it's gone from Armstrong was a doper to yes everyone doped but Armstrong was a doper and a bully.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

spade2you said:


> What is the alternative to EPO in dialysis patients? Google it.


Is it cancer?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Local Hero said:


> Is it cancer?


I guess if they die from cancer, then they won't need dialysis.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

I agree the thread is starting to veer into a forest for the trees kind of argument. 

For me it doesn't change the big picture - there's no compelling proof that Dr. Einhorn covered up Armstrong's PED use for cash.


----------



## RTSO2112 (Oct 18, 2012)

Heavens to Betsy...I hope not!


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

spade2you said:


> I'm questioning The Dr., if he's really even a doctor for more than implying that big pharma and physicians are being crooked with EPO use. Having worked in a real hospital for quite some time, these allegations are simply false.
> 
> He can say whatever about cyclists, but I'll draw the line at my job. Besides, it's fun to point out that people are just pulling up interw3b articles when it's something you do for a living.


Try to stay on topic. 

You asked



spade2you said:


> Now show to me that this kind of EPO use is causing cancer


I provided more then enough information to show that EPO's cancer risk is significant enough that the FDA mandated a change the labeling to warn of this risk. 

We know you are a self admitted troll but instead of trying to derail yet another thread just admit you are wrong and move on.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Bluenote said:


> I agree the thread is starting to veer into a forest for the trees kind of argument.
> 
> For me it doesn't change the big picture - there's no compelling proof that Dr. Einhorn covered up Armstrong's PED use for cash.


There is plenty of evidence that he benefit financially from Armstrong and excused Armstrong's doping. Funny how he has no problem questioning Frankie and Betsy's integrity while they were smeared but so easily excused Armstrong's decades of lies. Flexible morals


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

I thought it was - Armstrong was a doper, pushed others to dope, abused the court system, made questionable donations and was a bully. 

I think that is less goal post moving and more reassessing him as more facts have come to light. Bit different. 

I don't agree that Armstrong is the worst. I think he is among the worst we know of now. 

I don't think Armstrong needs to be 'the worst' to justify his ban, loss of sponsorships, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if there are more lifetime bans in the future as more 'ringleaders' get caught. The Puerto testimony is pretty nasty stuff.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

I am disappointed that he and IU didn't make a stronger anti-PED statement.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I provided more then enough information to show that EPO's cancer risk is significant enough that the FDA mandated a change the labeling to warn of this risk.


Weird.


----------



## Robert1 (Mar 27, 2012)

I just have to wonder what whether EPO has any risk of cancer has to do with anything at all. There are a tone of drugs used medically that have a risk of cancer. Pretty much every immunosuppresant is associated with the risk of cancer as well as all the various DMARDS used to treat autoimmune disease. OK so what is really the point? That they should never be used? That the doctor must have asked if they were being used? What? How weird.


----------



## Robert1 (Mar 27, 2012)

BTW, I can care less what this doctor did. Anyone that has advanced a medical cause and treatments as he has I'll gladly excuse even if he did supress one patients drug use. That is peanuts compared to all the GD self serving corruption going on by our politicians and corporate executives. I just heard today Jesses Jackson Jr. is being charged for embezelling $750,000 from his campain fund that he spent on things like Rolex watches, etc. I wonder how many Rolex watches this Dr. purchased for himself with LA's donation.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Robert1 said:


> BTW, I can care less what this doctor did. Anyone that has advanced a medical cause and treatments as he has I'll gladly excuse even if he did supress one patients drug use. That is peanuts compared to all the GD self serving corruption going on by our politicians and corporate executives. I just heard today Jesses Jackson Jr. is being charged for embezelling $750,000 from his campain fund that he spent on things like Rolex watches, etc. I wonder how many Rolex watches this Dr. purchased for himself with LA's donation.


Is it ok for him to essentially call Frankie and Betsy liars when most rational people can see they are telling the truth?


----------



## ArkRider (Jul 27, 2007)

Most docs I know are going to inquire as to cause ... ya know, that whole history of the disease and understanding what's going on in your patient's body type of thing. Sometimes docs like to know what they're dealing with.


----------



## Robert1 (Mar 27, 2012)

Honestly, I don't really care. It's pretty low on my list of the things that infuriate me. You're talking about a doctor that revolutionized medical treatment that saves thousands of lives, and you'd like to discount this and see him hang because of your personal feelings on doping and LA. I can think of a lot worse things done but some real scumbags. This just doesn't get me that excited.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Robert1 said:


> Honestly, I don't really care. It's pretty low on my list of the things that infuriate me. You're talking about a doctor that revolutionized medical treatment that saves thousands of lives, and you'd like to discount this and see him hang because of your personal feeling on doping and LA. I can thing of a lot worse things done but some real scumbags. This just doesn't do get me that excited.


We get it, you think it is fine to let Betsy and Frankie hang but not the doctor. 

Personally I side with the people who told the truth


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I provided more then enough information to show that EPO's cancer risk is significant enough that the FDA mandated a change the labeling to warn of this risk.
> 
> We know you are a self admitted troll but instead of trying to derail yet another thread just admit you are wrong and move on.


Cry to the mods.

Admit I'm wrong? I know how smart you think you are, but you don't even have the Cliff's Notes of the Cliff's Notes. Again, if you're going to question me on drugs, show us your credentials. You couldn't even offer me a simple solution to EPO. Of course I know it and the counter arguments against it.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

spade2you said:


> Cry to the mods.
> 
> Admit I'm wrong? I know how smart you think you are, but you don't even have the Cliff's Notes of the Cliff's Notes. Again, if you're going to question me on drugs, show us your credentials. You couldn't even offer me a simple solution to EPO. Of course I know it and the counter arguments against it.


We get it,You were wrong. you are embarrassed. but there is no reason to continue with the silly games and try to highjack yet another thread with nonsense. 

Back on topic. EPO, HGH, and other drugs do increase the spread of cancer. This came a surprise to you, the smart guy. Some think it is odd that none of Lance's doctors asked him if he was taking anything that might explain the sudden, rapid spread of his cancer. Even odder that the Hospital received a nice $1,500,000 donation days after they obstructed the SCA case. 

Many also think it is odd that a famous cancer doctor has no problems with Lance taking drugs that cause cancer and increase it's growth. The good doctor even rationalize their use. What is next smoking? Many find it disturbing that he jumps in to smear people like Frankie and Betsy


----------



## Robert1 (Mar 27, 2012)

That's kind of sanctimonious. Real life just doesn't work that way. Show me the person who is 100% honest under every circumstance and I'll show you a liar.



Doctor Falsetti said:


> We get it, you think it is fine to let Betsy and Frankie hang but not the doctor.
> 
> Personally I side with the people who told the truth


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

I'm outraged that you are not outraged. 

OUTRAGED I TELL YOU.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Some think it is odd that none of Lance's doctors asked him if he was taking anything that might explain the sudden, rapid spread of his cancer.


Do you just make things up sometimes?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Robert1 said:


> That's kind of sanctimonious. Real life just doesn't work that way. Show me the person who is 100% honest under every circumstance and I'll show you a liar.


It is sanctimonious to ignore the doctor's smearing of Frankie and Betsy and celebrating the use of cancer causing drugs.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> We get it, you are embarrassed. You were wrong.....but try to stay on topic.


Oh, you bait and bait and bait so you can report and get people banned if they don't agree with you. 

You have no credentials to be questioning me on drugs. If you think I'm wrong and are celebrating, you truly are a legend in your own mind. Before you report me or e-mail me (again), Coolhand is more than welcome to hear my credentials and what I do.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It is sanctimonious to ignore the doctor's smearing of Frankie and Betsy and celebrating the use of cancer causing drugs.


Listen, some people like to celebrate the use cancer causing drugs. Is that so wrong?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It is sanctimonious to ignore the doctor's smearing of Frankie and Betsy and celebrating the use of cancer causing drugs.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

I disagree with Dr. Falseti's conclusions, but it is a valid question. Not some crazy thing he made up.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Everybody calm down. *Coohand* is here. 


Try to act natural.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

spade2you said:


> Oh, you bait and bait and bait so you can report and get people banned if they don't agree with you.
> 
> You have no credentials to be questioning me on drugs. If you think I'm wrong and are celebrating, you truly are a legend in your own mind. Before you report me or e-mail me (again), Coolhand is more than welcome to hear my credentials and what I do.


You are just making it worse

It is pretty simple. Despite your self proclaimed knowledge you were unaware of EPO's cancer risks. You are welcome for me educating you on the subject. 

if you truly believe the FDA is wrong then I suggest you get in touch with them to change their labeling. I am sure Amgen would also like your input, maybe they can get some of their settlement money back with your expert advice


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You are just making it worse
> 
> It is pretty simple. Despite your self proclaimed knowledge you were unaware of EPO's cancer risks. You are welcome for me educating you on the subject.
> 
> if you truly believe the FDA is wrong then I suggest you get in touch with them to change their labeling. I am sure Amgen would also like your input, maybe they can get some of their settlement money back with your expert advice


I don't think you have an audience in this fight any more. 

Just be glad you're not one of the people who needs EPO and dialysis three times a week or else.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I am sure Amgen would also like your input, maybe they can get some of their settlement money back with your expert advice


Just to be clear, are you saying that Amgen lost a lawsuit because EPO causes cancer?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Local Hero said:


> Just to be clear, are you saying that Amgen lost a lawsuit because EPO causes cancer?


Even though you do that for a living, I'm pretty sure he knows more than you about law, too.


----------



## Robert1 (Mar 27, 2012)

Someone is very confused. The lawsuits have nothing to do with epo causing cancer.

Armstrong's fraud paralleled EPO-makers' feud | Cycling News




Local Hero said:


> Just to be clear, are you saying that Amgen lost a lawsuit because EPO causes cancer?


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

As you know, Amgen paid the fines after evidence showed they were thwarting the FDA and pushing for off-label use of the drug. 

This isn't the first or the last time a pharma company has had to pay for such behavior. "Doctor" Falsetti posted an article that he either did not read or understand. Here is an excerpt: 

_While doctors are allowed to use drugs for unapproved uses, companies are not supposed to promote such uses. The government has collected billions of dollars from pharmaceutical companies in recent years for off-label marketing.

The Amgen settlement is fairly large, but several have exceeded $1 billion. In July, GlaxoSmithKline agreed to pay $3 billion, in part for promoting antidepressants and other drugs for unapproved uses._


The claim that Amgen paid fines because EPO _causes cancer_ is misleading and disingenuous. To my knowledge it has not been shown that EPO *causes* cancer. More from the article that "Doctor" Falsetti either did not read or understand: 

_studies show that high doses [of EPO] can lead to blood clots and the *worsening* of cancer._


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> Just to be clear, are you saying that Amgen lost a lawsuit because EPO causes cancer?


They settled for $762 Million

The case focused on Amgen pushing off label use and higher and more frequent doses. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/19/business/amgen-agrees-to-pay-762-million-in-drug-case.html?_r=0



> Amgen was “pursuing profits at the risk of patient safety,” Marshall L. Miller, acting United States attorneyin Brooklyn, said





> use of Aranesp by those nonchemotherapy cancer patients had actually increased the risk of death,


In 2010 the FDA issued a warning and ordered new label warnings for EPO

FDA Drug Safety Communication: Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agents (ESAs): Procrit, Epogen and Aranesp



> ESAs can increase the risk of tumor growth and shorten survival in patients with cancer who use these products.


But our resident expert says there is nothing to it. EPO is safe.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

A few things before I go: That's a big back peddle. Even the part of the warning label you posted does not support your claim that EPO causes cancer. You made the claim in this thread more than once. Can you admit that you were wrong and TALKING OUT OF YOUR ASS?


----------



## Robert1 (Mar 27, 2012)

Wow falsetto you really are doing a hell of a tap dance here.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

This quote 

_Amgen was “pursuing profits at the risk of patient safety,” Marshall L. Miller, acting United States attorneyin Brooklyn, said_

does not bolster your claim that EPO is dangerous. According to the FDA, a pharma co pushing for any off-label use is a pursuit of profit at the risk of patient safety.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> The claim that Amgen paid fines because EPO _causes cancer_ is misleading and disingenuous. To my knowledge it has not been shown that EPO *causes* cancer. More from the article that "Doctor" Falsetti either did not read or understand:
> 
> _studies show that high doses [of EPO] can lead to blood clots and the *worsening* of cancer._


You did not read, or not understand, what I wrote? Over and over I have written that EPO increases the spread of cancer. Gave multiple links, quotes, etc.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

I find the FDA statement to be pretty compelling. Thanks for the link. 

I wish the discussion on doping had more stuff like this. Concrete discussions on the risks.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> A few things before I go: That's a big back peddle. Even the part of the warning label you posted does not support your claim that EPO causes cancer. You made the claim in this thread more than once. Can you admit that you were wrong and TALKING OUT OF YOUR ASS?


Please provide a link where I claim that EPO causes cancer? 

I have been clear in multiple posts that the EPO's risks are focused on the spread of cancer. 

That is not to say that Einhorn did not have a problem with Lance using cancer causing products. One of the products Armstrong admitting taking was HGH 

Suppression of human growth hormone may ward off cancer, diabetes - Los Angeles Times


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

The discussed distinction between causing cancer and cancer proliferation is somewhat academic when you consider the physiologic functions of the body's immune system in fighting pre-cancerous and cancerous cells. From:

*Blood protein EPO involved in origin and spread of cancer*
Blood protein EPO involved in origin and spread of cancer - Startpage - Karolinska Institutet

" It (EPO) also stimulates tumour angiogenesis by directly stimulating the proliferation, migration and growth of endothelial cells and their ability to form the so-called epithelial tube." "We believe that the increase in EPO might be responsible for tumoural resistance to anti-angiogenetic drugs"

Most cells that become pre-cancerous do NOT progress to become cancerous because they are eliminated from the body's immune system. When these cells become more angiogenic due to EPO use their growth rate increases, making the immune system unable to cope. I think what's lacking in this discussion is the understanding that cells get genetically damaged on a daily basis and it takes the immune system to rid the body of these flawed cells.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

something else I find interesting as I read conversations like this. I remember when the term "99er" starting being bandied about. People just lambasted Armstrong for doping, many like he must be the only one. 

As time has passed though and it has become clear that pretty much at least the top 20 doped that stopped being enough. I mean you can't vilify a guy for doing what your favorite rider did. So now then it starts looking at personality. He was a bully. I was bullied in High School. I got over it.

edit: This is not to excuse any such actions but the transition is curious.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

DrSmile said:


> The discussed distinction between causing cancer and cancer proliferation is somewhat academic when you consider the physiologic functions of the body's immune system in fighting pre-cancerous and cancerous cells. From:
> 
> *Blood protein EPO involved in origin and spread of cancer*
> Blood protein EPO involved in origin and spread of cancer - Startpage - Karolinska Institutet
> ...


Thank you 

To the last part, very correct on the immune system. Cortisone can make it a mess. No wonder 4 of Chris Charmichael's rider got so sick after he gave it to him. Ernie and Lance both got testicular cancer and Erich and Greg came down with HPV related deseases


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Local Hero said:


> Can you admit that you were wrong and TALKING OUT OF YOUR ASS?


I think we can take that as a "no".


----------



## Beck (Jun 8, 2011)

I think the question is whether while a doctor is taking a history would he have asked Lance about using PEDs. I am not a medical doctor but I would think this would be a logical question to ask. Apparently to this doctor he wouldn't ask this question. That doesn't mean a different doctor wouldn't ask the question. Maybe there was a different doctor in the room at the time. I don't think she is lying, otherwise Lance would have made sure it everyone knew it was false during Oprah. It is very strange for Lance to attack her before and now doesn't want to talk about it. My assumption is that the question was asked and the answer was given.


----------



## ZoomBoy (Jan 28, 2004)

If I were lying in a hospital bed in the same shape as LA I would hope that my doctor would ask about EVERYTHING in my life that could have contributed to my condition be it PEDs or if I ate veal for dinner on Jan7th 1982 if it could give any insight as to why I was so sick and what could be done to treat me.

I feel the question was asked and it was answered truthfully by LA. His life may have depended on it. I find no reason to not believe Betsy and Frankie.

Also IMO to compare the use of EPO on dialysis patients who actually have a true medical need for it to some a-hole athlete is an apples to oranges arguement.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> A few things before I go: That's a big back peddle. Even the part of the warning label you posted does not support your claim that EPO causes cancer. You made the claim in this thread more than once. *Can you admit that you were wrong and TALKING OUT OF YOUR ASS?*


So are you and your troll friend going to admit that you were wrong and talking out of your ass?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> So are you and your troll friend going to admit that you were wrong and talking out of your ass?


Hey, that's name calling and you've reported me for much less.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

spade2you said:


> Hey, that's name calling and you've reported me for much less.


Thanks for proving my point. You have admitted many times that you are here to troll.....your words, something you take pride in

It is clear that the mods are not concerned with you and your buddy's insults, baiting, and lying. 

Perhaps instead of trolling this place you might want to go study a bit more? You made many big claims about your expertise that have been unsupported by your posts.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Thanks for proving my point. You have admitted many times that you are here to troll.....your words, something you take pride in
> 
> It is clear that the mods are not concerned with you and your buddy's insults, baiting, and lying.
> 
> Perhaps instead of trolling this place you might want to go study a bit more? You made many big claims about your expertise that have been unsupported by your posts.


Only you would tell a lawyer and a pharmacist that they don't know jack. 

You have cracked. I can smell it, brah. You've gotten revenge on Lance and you're still batty. You overplayed your hand and a few folks called your bluff.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Thanks for proving my point. You have admitted many times that you are here to troll.....your words, something you take pride in
> 
> It is clear that the mods are not concerned with you and your buddy's insults, baiting, and lying.
> 
> Perhaps instead of trolling this place you might want to go study a bit more? You made many big claims about your expertise that have been unsupported by your posts.


Their insults just degrade them. Tips what they're about and all that. 

You've made a fair point - a Hospital famous for its oncology work doesn't make a bigger stand about use of PEDs. 

How much of Armstrong's medical records went missing at the SCA trial?


----------

