Did Lance Armstrong Have Cancer?

Question

According to wikipedia:

In October 1996, he was diagnosed with testicular cancer that had spread to his brain and lungs. His cancer treatments included brain and testicular surgery and extensive chemotherapy. In February 1997, he was declared cancer-free and the same year he founded the Lance Armstrong Foundation for cancer support.

Is there evidence that Lance Armstrong really did have cancer, or was this a lie as well?

Questions on Skeptics.SE must be asked with referenced claims. You are lacking a notable claim that Lance Armstrong lied about his cancer, and are simply simply postulating that yourself. If you don't have a reason to contest the Wiki, this question will be closed. — MCM, Jan 19 '13 at 04:06
Actually the claim is that he had cancer. I am disputing this claim. I provided wikipedia as a reference but I'm sure you can find other sources that say he had cancer. As far as I'm aware I don't need to provide notable claims for both points of view, just the point of view that I am skeptical of (that is, that he had cancer). — Kenshin, Jan 19 '13 at 04:06
You must have a notable reference supporting your skepticism, or antagonistic to the popularly accepted version. Simply claiming you are skeptical of a fact/graphic/story/etc. and re-stating the well-known version is not the same as providing a reason why you should be skeptical. — MCM, Jan 19 '13 at 04:16
@MCM I'd say the fact that Lance Armstrong lied about not taking drugs would count as a reason to be skeptical about his claim that he had cancer. — Andrew Grimm, Jan 19 '13 at 11:23
@MCM: This issue is covered in [this meta-question](http://meta.skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/1406/if-a-claim-is-commonly-accepted-does-questioning-it-require-a-notable-counter-c). If you think we should have such a rule, please post/vote appropriately. — Oddthinking, Jan 19 '13 at 11:49
@Oddthinking - Alright. I wasn't aware of the meta-question. Thanks. Perhaps I just found the question ridiculous since Armstrong had absolutely no reason to lie about his cancer, and every reason to lie about his doping. — MCM, Jan 19 '13 at 13:42
@MCM I'd say he'd have motive to lie about having cancer, partially to show how bad-ass he is to recover from cancer and win the TDF, and partially for sympathy. I'm glad to hear that he didn't! — Andrew Grimm, Jan 20 '13 at 20:59

score 17 · Accepted Answer · answered Jan 19 '13 at 12:18

The US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) produced a report on its decisions against Armstrong.

One of the key pieces of evidence against Armstrong was the testimonial of fellow cyclist Frankie Andreu about what he heard in an Indiana hospital room, while Armstrong was being treated for cancer. That testimony was initially challenged by Armstrong.

However, one of Armstrong’s doctors, Craig Nichols, confirmed that the very next day, October 28, 1996, Armstrong was set to begin chemotherapy consisting of the intravenous administration of “an aggressive combination of cisplatin, etoposide, and infosfamide.”

So, a doctor testified in an affadavit that Armstrong was receiving chemotherapy, providing strong evidence that Armstrong was indeed sick with cancer as claimed.

(Side note: Armstrong later confessed that Andreu's testimony was accurate during the recent Oprah interview.)

Did Lance Armstrong Have Cancer?

1 Answers1