Thursday, January 24, 2013

Armstrong's Plan to Blame Cancer


Ever scheming, ever deceptive, even while alleging to confess in the softball interview, Armstrong was deceptive.  This, from the DailyMail, comes as no surprise. 


Lance Armstrong blames cycling’s governing body for the spread of the cancer that nearly killed him and told a team-mate that it was his ‘card to play’ if he ever faced any ‘doping problem.’
The startling allegation is made in former U.S Postal Service team-mate Jonathan Vaughters’s sworn affidavit to the United States Anti Doping Agency (USADA).
According to Vaughters, 39, Armstrong told him that tests carried out by the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) should have detected a high level of Human Chorionic Gonadotropin (HCG) but failed to do so.
lance
Teammates: Armstrong told US Postal cyclist Jonathan Vaughters, pictured together 1999, that his cancer was a 'card to play' if he ever had a 'doping problem'
Vaughters stated: ‘Early on at a Postal Service training camp I had a conversation with Lance in which he told me that the UCI should have detected a high level of HCG in his doping controls when he had cancer but had failed to do so.
‘Thus, in Lance’s eyes the UCI was somewhat at fault for the extent of his cancer…Lance said, “if I ever have a doping problem, I have this card to play.”’
 

It is a disturbing insight into the calculating character of the man and raises troubling questions that strike at the heart of the UCI’s doping programme.
Elevated levels of HCG are not only indicators of the doping for which Armstrong and his team-mates were regularly tested. They are also a sign of some cancers – including testicular cancer with which Lance was diagnosed on 2 October 1996, at the age of 25.
WInfrey had less than a week to prepare for the important interview with Armstrong.
Suspect: The disgraced cyclist told Oprah that when he dealt with the UCI 'there were things that were a little shady'
By the time he was diagnosed the cancer had spread to his abdomen, liver and brain. Doctors gave him a 50/50 chance of survival – odds they later admitted were far greater than those he truly faced.

HCG is a naturally occurring hormone but only at low levels in men. There are rules regarding the levels allowed in athletes because it produces testosterone giving a competitive advantage.

In the prelude to his diagnosis Armstrong was having one of the best years of his career.
Normal male levels are between zero and 5 milli-International Units per millilitre of blood (mIU/mL). Athletes are considered to have failed a drug test if the urinary Testosterone/Epitestosterone ratio is greater than six. 

On his diagnosis Armstrong’s levels had rocketed to around  110,000 mIU/mL.
Armstrong, 41, has described himself as the most tested athlete on the planet. He has frequently boasted that he never once failed a drugs test and often wheeled out this fact to rubbish detractors who spoke out against him. 

Yet though he was tested several times by the UCI during the year of his diagnosis, and though his blood levels would have undoubtedly been enormously elevated by his cancer, not one test came back positive for HCG
Spotlight: Sheryl Crow's interview in which she speaks about her former fiance Lance Armstrong's doping confession will air on Tuesday night
Spotlight: Sheryl Crow's interview in which she speaks about her former fiance Lance Armstrong's doping confession will air on Tuesday night
Armstrong has consistently denied paying the UCI for the clean test results which allowed him to dope and compete for more than a decade. He made two donations to the UCI – highly unusual practice for an athlete – one of $25,000 in 2002 and a later one of $100,000.
When asked about these donations during his interview with Oprah Winfrey, Armstrong claimed that the UCI had approached him and solicited a donation. He said, ‘they didn’t have a lot of money,’ adding ‘There were things that were a little shady, this was not one.’

If Armstrong hoped to scotch some of the speculation and controversy surrounding his doping by giving the Winfrey interview he has been sadly disappointed.

His ex-fiancee Sheryl Crow, 50, is now under increasing pressure as she herself will face the cameras with a television interview on Entertainment Tonight on Tuesday night.
She dated Armstrong between 2003 and 2006 – a time span that straddles two of his tainted Tour de France titles. Many find it inconceivable that the singer could have been so close to Armstrong and remained oblivious to his drug use or the culture of doping which the USADA investigation has exposed.

Armstrong’s former team-mate and one time closest friend, Frankie Andreu, has provided an affidavit which places Crow in the room when Armstrong raged against Greg Le Mond’s decision to speak out against doping.

Tyler Hamilton has revealed that Crow was subpoenaed in 2011 just weeks before a grand jury closed their investigation into the cyclist

5 comments:

Anonymous said...








Since i ever heard about the cancer diagnosis, i have always wondered if it was true.

Anyone else i ever heard of with cancer who underwent chemo and radiation was severely debilitated.

Is Lance a wonder of modern medicine or is he lying about cancer too? Why was he able to perform when no one else ever could?







drdebo said...

I have this theory that Armstrong provided the sperm for his spired ex-fianc√©’s two sons. Just my own theory- just makes sense- it was the least he could do after dumping her- especially after she was dx'd with CA right afterword’s. He already had sperm frozen and stored for his laer use.

I think a lot of these single-mom celeb "adoptions' of Caucasian babies are actually surrogate births- with their eggs and some guy they don't want to names’ sperm donation.

Regardless- my comment to article is that the trauma and circumstances of his medical problems might have very well contributed to his frame of mind/mind set and understanding of human body and energy enhancement learned thru his rehabilitation efforts- that inspired his conceiving of the particular doping techniques he used- makes perfect sense to me.

So CA is indirectly related.

Hobnob said...

Isn't it interesting that when the public realise the subject has made a deceptive statement, the subject then cannot helpthemselves that issue another statement supporting the first statement or rebutting the first statement by cliaming they were misquoted.
The more we doubt the more the subject says in order to convince us and perhaps themselves.
As time progress they lose track of the offical original story and are now supporting and rebutting lies and ending up in a right pickle.
This is particularly noticeable in cases which span several years of continuous deception.

They cannot remember who they told what and when or even why and so end up in a vicious circle before disappearing up their own butts a la oozlum bird or in a puff of smoke and a fading "oh bugger".

Sadly for them there are people out there who do make a note of who said what and when (damn that pesky internet) and who will happily and loudly point out inconsistencies and deception and who will helpfully even point the media is said right direction ( holds up sticky lil mitt although i have been ever so good and not poked antonella legionella (lazzeri)of the sun with a large pointy stick this year and i was nice to the daily express pointing out their frontpage oopsie and how to suefor return of monies paid out)

The gruesomes have capitulated and are trying to come to an agreement that will keep ex det Goncalo Amaral happy.
The media were then told to lookie over here Maddie in Brazil which the dumb ones printed whilst none have mentioned the gruesomes abandoning their libel case against Goncalo ( and then probably against Tony Bennet)
myself and many others being ever so helpful and stuffs have been happily emailing various media mentioning in passing this nugget of news and suggesting tey ask the gruesomes for a statement confirming or denying.
So far not a whispers from team mccann and a few denials and rearranging of the facts from their few remaining diehard supporters, one of whom said they were not allowing disccuion about that horrid little man on their site (Goncalo Amaral)

Anonymous said...

drdebo: I agree about the sperm from Lance. I think all 7 kids were from his frozen sperm pre-cancer treatment. Hoping against odds, none of those kids got his psychopathology gene.

Hobnob said...

‘Thus, in Lance’s eyes the UCI was somewhat at fault for the extent of his cancer…Lance said, “if I ever have a doping problem, I have this card to play.”’

Had they noticed and said anything he would have ignored them anyway since he was doping or denied it as he has been doing for many years.
He would have assumed they had caught the doping not a cancer, a cancer which he probably got from all his doping in the first place.

It seems few are believing he was totally honest in his interview, claiming soft questions and prompting. answering for him/finishing his answers for him.
from oprah.

2005 seems to have caught a few eyes as he got real evasive and no strong denials regarding doping after that date and lots of minimising and playing ring around the question.

people will only be satisfied if he restifies under oath and gets nailed for perjury everytime he tells a double whopper with large fries and milkshake :)