As we discussed yesterday, Sheryl Crow gave her first (and perhaps only) interview about her ex-fiancé Lance Armstrong to Entertainment Tonight on Tuesday. She just offered a few cryptic quotes like “I think that honesty is always the best bet and that the truth will set you free…” I pointed out that the years Sheryl and Lance were together – 2003 to 2006 – were the years that Lance now says he was doping. Sheryl and Lance spent a great deal of time together, she traveled with him, they lived together, etc – so what did she know and when did she know it? I think we can all agree that she probably knew something, right? So the question becomes: was Sheryl classy for being so quiet and discreet, or was she a bad person for sitting idly by as Lance lied his face off and sued people into oblivion for telling the truth? Well, Betsy Andreu, the wife of one of Lance’s former teammates, says that Sheryl should have taken a more proactive position:

Lance Armstrong‘s former teammate’s wife is speaking out about the cyclist’s spectacular fall from grace, and slamming his (now ex) longterm girlfriend turned fiancee, Sheryl Crow – saying it’s “unthinkable” that the singer didn’t know Armstrong was doping – and RadarOnline.com has the details.

In an exclusive interview with the Mail Online, Betsy Andreu says it is “sick and unconscionable” that Crow didn’t report Armstrong, 41, for his cheating behavior.

“Are you kidding me? She was his fiancee. She surely knew what was going on. She could have helped other people,” Andreu fumes.

Tuesday night, in an interview with Entertainment Tonight, Crow said she felt bad for Armstrong being stripped of his Tour de France titles, two of which he won during the time they were dating.

“I know how hard he worked to win those titles, and you know, it was hard to watch. I felt bad,” Crow said. “I felt bad for him, I felt bad for his family, and I kinda felt like the rest of America. He is a hero that we watched and looked up to and admired.”

However, Betsy questions Crow’s sincerity and believes she should have said something.

“Sheryl was by his side when he was trying to destroy people and she said nothing,” she says. “That’s unconscionable. I mean it just astounds me. You should know people are telling the truth and you’re silent. It’s sick. My God she was engaged to the guy. She, like so many other women, did not speak up. If they went through what we went through, would they want somebody to speak up? She could have done something.”

Crow, who was with Armstrong from 2003 to 2006, has not responded to media speculation about whether or not she knew about the doping.

Crow was interviewed as part of USADA’s investigation into Armstrong’s doping scandal, but it is not known how she responded. However, Betsy says she doesn’t believe Crow was questioned accordingly.

“Somebody should ask Sheryl ‘did you see the blood tranfusions? Were drugs ever stored in your home? Did you see any of that in your house?’” She says.

And, while she doesn’t forgive Armstrong, Betsy is happy that the truth is partially out .

“There’s a sense of relief because he’s told some of the truth but he still has a ways to go in telling all of it. It’s sad. You see just a broken man. Somebody who thought he was invincible. When a person doesn’t know how to tell the truth or say they’re sorry it’s sad, sad, sad,” she reveals.

Request for comment was not returned at time of post.

[From Radar]

I’m not trying to start a flame-war or anything (truly), but I agree with Betsy Andreu. I judge people harshly when they don’t have the balls to stand up against injustices and crimes. You can make the argument that Sheryl has class and discretion and silence are virtues, but I simply don’t agree. I think standing up and fighting for what’s right is part of good citizenry, and that’s the only way our society works. Now, I’m not saying that Sheryl is AS BAD as Lance. She’s not, and the overwhelming majority of the anger and disgust should be directed at Lance. But I do think Sheryl should have to answer some questions about why she didn’t step up and speak out.

Photos of Sheryl and her sons at the beach yesterday… convenient photo-op, right?

Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet and WENN.

Here are photos of Bradley Cooper at the Rome photocall for Silver Linings Playbook. You guys, I’m still not over this alleged “perm“ of his. Why does this perm make his hair look essentially the same as it did before only much greasier? I know I give Bradley a hard time sometimes, but he’s much better looking when he’s not playing your typical greaseball. I tease because I love, really. It’s not like with Tom Cruise and his lifts. Bradley’s crazy smile actually equates to a strange sort of euphoria on my end. Here, his facial expression is telling me, “Why am I the only lead promoting this film in Europe while JLaw is at home and hosting “SNL”?” (Does anyone rememeber when Bradley hosted “SNL” himself? He was pretty funny and did a really cute sketch with fake Kathie Lee and Hoda in which he demonstrated how to “walk like your panties are filled with hot grits.” Ah, memories.)

At the moment, however, Bradley is fielding questions from interviewers. At the BBC, the subject of Lance Armstrong, his doping investigation, and his exclusive Oprah interview came up. It really sounds like the journalists were merely covering current events and, of course, Bradley fell into the willing trap of mentioning that he wouldn’t mind playing Lance in a feature film. Uh-oh:

Oscar-nominated actor Bradley Cooper says he would “love” to play Lance Armstrong in a film about the disgraced cycling champion’s life.

Cooper, who starred in Silver Linings Playbook and The Hangover, told the BBC: “I would be interested in that. I think he’s fascinating. What a fascinating character.”

Paramount Pictures is planning a biopic of the cyclist, who has admitted using banned drugs and blood doping to win his seven Tour de France titles.

The film studio has not announced a cast and Cooper said he had not had any discussions about playing Armstrong.

Matt Damon, Jake Gyllenhaal, Michael Fassbender and Christian Bale are among the other actors whose names have been mentioned in relation to the role.

Cooper, who is nominated for best actor at next month’s Oscars for Silver Linings Playbook, told the BBC: “I remember Matt Damon was going to do his autobiography at one point years ago.

“I remember thinking, that would be a great character, I’d love to play that character. I would love to do something, I think he’s pretty fascinating.”

Paramount Pictures and JJ Abrams’ production company Bad Robot will base the film on New York Times reporter Juliet Macur’s forthcoming book Cycle of Lies: The Fall of Lance Armstrong.

Cooper also appeared on BBC One Breakfast on Tuesday, when he talked about the Oscars and his plan to take his mother to the ceremony.

Bradley Cooper: “My mum is my Oscars date”

[From BBC]

Slow down, Bradley. You just received your first Oscar nomination — no need to work on the second one so quickly. Am I jumping ahead too much by assuming that this negative biopic would necessarily be Oscar bait? I guess I’m more offended by the obvious posturing of Hollywood in immediately jumping upon this cycling scandal and assuming that there will be an audience willing to watch the so-called true story in a few years after the film is completed.

As for Bradley, I guess he might be able to pull off the role. He’s played arrogant and douchey before in The Hangover movies, so jumping on a bike and slapping on an IV needle should be no big stretch. That’s pretty much what this movie will be about, right?

Photos courtesy of WENN

This might sounds completely Anti-Sisterhood, but I was never really into Sheryl Crow’s music or Sheryl as a person. I didn’t actively hate it or anything, and if I heard it on the radio, I would probably listen to it, but I just never really cared that much or fan-girl’d her at all. So when the Lance Armstrong exploded (or he imploded, either/or), I really didn’t think about Sheryl until everybody began to say things like “Sheryl dodged a bullet” and “Sheryl’s probably happy she got out.” Sheryl and Lance dated from 2003 to 2006 and they were engaged for a while too. That time period was also known as “the sweet spot when Lance was doping like a mofo” – at least according to him. Which means that I have some questions for Sheryl about whether or not she knew what her boyfriend was doing with all of those needles and blood transfusions. But no one is asking her that. They’re only asking her how she “feels”. You can see Sheryl’s first interview since Lance spoke to Oprah here:

Sheryl speaks. Sheryl Crow broke her silence on ex-boyfriend Lance Armstrong’s shocking fall from grace to Entertainment Tonight on Monday Jan. 21. Addressing Armstrong’s long-awaited confession — he admitted to using performance-enhancing drugs to Oprah Winfrey last week — the “Strong Enough” singer, 50, was philosophical about the athlete, whom she dated from 2003 to 2006.

“[It's] got to be really hard to walk around knowing that you’re not telling the truth about something,” Crow said of Armstrong, 41. “I think that honesty is always the best bet and that the truth will set you free,” added the Grammy winner, who caught “bits and pieces” of her ex-fiance’s interview with Oprah Winfrey. “To carry a weight like that around would be devastating in the long run…I always contend that the truth is the best way to go.”

Telling Winfrey that he used a “cocktail” before cycling competitions (EPO, blood transfusions and testosterone), Armstrong told Winfrey: “I view this situation as one big lie that I repeated a lot of times. I know the truth. The truth isn’t what was out there. The truth isn’t what I said.”

“I’m a flawed character, as I well know,” Armstrong, who has been stripped of all his titles and endorsements, said. “All the fault and all the blame here falls on me.”

[From Us Weekly]

Yeah. Eh. Does anyone else wonder if Sheryl knew more about Lance’s situation and his lies a long time ago? Does anyone else wonder if Lance’s real personality – his douchebaggery, his narcissism, his coldness, his vindictiveness – came out and Sheryl was like “Good God, he’s a monster”? Some would say her relative silence is classy, and you could definitely make that argument. I would argue that if she knew he was engaging in illegal behavior AND lying about it AND suing anyone who told the truth about him, she should have spoken up.

Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet.

I won’t get into the reasons why I missed seeing Oprah’s first part of her exclusive interview with Lance Armstrong last night. From what I can see… Lance came clean about everything, sort of. He nitpicked some of the details – like, he said he didn’t make his teammates dope (“I didn’t invent the culture, but I didn’t try to stop the culture”) – but Lance admitted to a slew of charges that have been leveled at him for years. He admitted to taking banned substances since the mid-1990s, he admitted to taking testosterone, EPO, human growth hormone. The scariest part is Oprah asked him a series of questions about whether he thought he was wrong to dope (at the time) and he said “No.” When she asked if he felt like he was cheating, he said “No … I viewed it as a level playing field.” Here are some video segments, but if you want to watch the actual OWN videos, go here.

When asked about all of the times he blatantly lied and sued the hell out of people who told the truth about him, Lance said: “I view this situation as one big lie that I repeated a lot of times… I know the truth. The truth isn’t what was out there. The truth isn’t what I said. I’m a flawed character, as I well know… All the fault and all the blame here falls on me.” Lance also said he stopped doping in 2005 and that he competed in the Tours de France in 2009 & 2010 clean – convenient because 2005 was the cut-off point for possible perjury charges against Lance, although I think a clever prosecutor would be able to make a good case for “conspiracy to commit perjury” and “conspiracy to commit fraud” which might have a longer statute of limitations.

As for WHY Lance lied so much and so often, for years and years, Lance said: “It just gets going and I lost myself in all that.” He called it his “flaw.” He’s such an a—hole.

USADA chief Travis Tygart released a statement after the interview aired – “Tonight, Lance Armstrong finally acknowledged that his cycling career was built on a powerful combination of doping and deceit…. His admission that he doped throughout his career is a small step in the right direction. But if he is sincere in his desire to correct his past mistakes, he will testify under oath about the full extent of his doping activities.”

Go here to see one the coldest parts of the interview, in my opinion – Lance chuckling about how many people he sued when they told the truth about him.

Photos courtesy of WENN, screencaps.

I never wore one of those yellow Livestrong bracelets, but even I feel a sense of betrayal on behalf of Lance Armstrong’s supporters and defenders. At this point, Lance has been lying and building his web of lies for more than a decade, and he’s had some very high-profile supporters and defenders, people who really believed in his message and his talent. And now it’s all crap. The Associated Press, TMZ and other outlets are now widely reporting that Lance has confessed to doping to his Livestrong employees in an emotional speech, and he’s already recorded his interview/confession with Oprah, and that will air on Thursday on OWN.

Lance Armstrong ADMITTED to Oprah Winfrey … he DID use performance-enhancing drugs during his pro cycling career to win the Tour de France … this according to the Associated Press.

Lance wrapped up his one-on-one interview with Oprah just a few hours ago … and according to the report, Lance finally ‘fessed up to cheating … the first time he’s ever admitted wrongdoing during his professional career.

Earlier in the day, Lance apologized to the staff at Livestrong, choking up and saying he was sorry for letting down the organization.

The way Lance worded his admission could have serious legal ramifications — considering he’s facing possible criminal prosecution and civil liability for allegedly lying about his PED use in a number of legal proceedings.

[From TMZ]

The interview took place in Austin, Texas in a hotel room, and just before the interview, Lance gave a 20-minute speech to the 100 employees of Livestrong (Lance withdrew from the board months ago, but I guess he hopes to come back at some point). Radar’s sources say that Lance’s speech was “heartfelt and sincere” – do you buy that? I think Lance has been living with his lies for so long, he probably doesn’t even know how to tell the truth.

As for the legal ramifications – well, his “confession” to Oprah and to the Livestrong employees means that Lance could be charged with perjury – he lied to prosecutors during a deposition in 2005, and I would imagine he’s committed perjury several times since then too. But will he face criminal charges? A source tells Radar that Lance is “now talking with authorities about paying back some of the US Postal Service money from sponsoring his team… He is also talking to authorities about confessing and naming names, giving up others involved in illegal doping. This could result in a reduction of his lifetime ban, according to the source, if Armstrong provides substantial and meaningful information.” Lance is worth a reported $100 million… and I kind of think he should give EVERYTHING back.

Photos courtesy of WENN.

On Monday, we discussed the weekend New York Times article which was, in essence, a trial balloon to see if the public at large would accept a full or partial confession from Lance Armstrong – go here to see my previous coverage. Lance is in a really bad position right now – he’s withdrawn from the board of directors of his own charity, he’s been stripped of his Tour de France titles, he’s losing endorsements and money and he’s probably looking at lots and lots of civil cases. The media is no longer on his side, and it seemed like Lance was trying to do some kind of stop-gap PR measure to simply stop the bleeding. The problem is that if he “confesses” to doping charges, he’s probably going to face criminal charges too, because we now know he’s perjured himself and committed fraud. So what is Lance’s big, bold move? He’s going to talk to Oprah.

Is Lance Armstrong about to confess to Oprah Winfrey? A few days after the New York Times reported that the disgraced cyclist, 41, was mulling a public admission regarding his suspected use of performance-enhancing drugs and blood transfusions, Winfrey has landed an exclusive, “no-holds-barred interview,” Winfrey’s site announced Tuesday Jan. 8.

In the Jan. 17 episode of Oprah’s Next Chapter, taped at the athlete’s home in Austin, Tex., Armstrong “will address the alleged doping scandal, years of accusations of cheating, and charges of lying about the use of performance-enhancing drugs throughout his storied cycling career,” the site reveals.

It’s the first interview for Armstrong since he was stripped of all of his Tour de France winner titles and lucrative endorsements and banned for life from cycling by the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency and the World Anti-Doping Agency.

Armstrong has previously denied all doping charges, but the the New York Times, citing anonymous sources, has confided in colleagues about possibly confessing. The confession could mean a lifting of Armstrong’s lifetime ban.

[From Us Weekly]

God, I just think this is such a terrible move. It’s bad PR – Lance is saying to the world, “I can only take softball questions and I can’t deal with a real investigation of my motives, my crimes, my lies, my fraud.” It’s a move that’s pandering to the audience too – Lance is saying to us that he thinks we’re dumb enough to merely accept his confession and apology and that he could have his life back. If Oprah were still on network television, there might be some wisdom in it, but she’s not. This is for her crappy, faltering OWN network that no one ever watches. If Lance confesses and nobody watches, did it really happen?

PS… It just occurred to me that Lance is probably going to pull a Tiger Woods, and by that I mean that he’ll blame everything on some manufactured “Addiction.” Lance probably won’t say he was addicted to doping (too on the nose), but he’ll say he’s a sex addict or a fame addict or something.

Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet and WENN.

Back in August of last year, the US Anti-Doping Agency’s years-investigation into Lance Armstrong and his team seemed to culminate in a rather spectacular turn of events. After several of Lance’s former teammates confessed to doping and claimed Lance had been doping for years as well, Lance announced that he was no longer going to participate in the USADA’s investigation, which led to the USADA stripping Lance of his seven Tour de France titles. Legal experts have been weighing in since then, and the basic gist is that Lance is in a lot of trouble, any way you look at it. His former endorsement partners can and might sue Lance (many had anti-doping clauses in their contracts), plus Lance’s charity, Livestrong, is in serious jeopardy, and Lance had to step down from the board (of his own charity!). Plus, there’s just a slew of criminal and financial issues for Lance.

So what will 2013 bring for Lance? Perhaps the ability to make some kind of f—ked up “fresh start”. The New York Times reported a very curious thing over the weekend – this is very much a “trial balloon” sent out by Lance’s people to gauge the public reaction to a possible new media strategy: Lance might publicly “confess” to doping to save (and then rehabilitate) his image. Eh.

Lance Armstrong, who this fall was stripped of his seven Tour de France titles for doping and barred for life from competing in all Olympic sports, has told associates and antidoping officials that he is considering publicly admitting that he used banned performance-enhancing drugs and blood transfusions during his cycling career, according to several people with direct knowledge of the situation. He would do this, the people said, because he wants to persuade antidoping officials to restore his eligibility so he can resume his athletic career.

For more than a decade, Armstrong has vehemently denied ever doping, even after antidoping officials laid out their case against him in October in hundreds of pages of eyewitness testimony from teammates, e-mail correspondence, financial records and laboratory analyses.

When asked if Armstrong might admit to doping, Tim Herman, Armstrong’s longtime lawyer, said, “Lance has to speak for himself on that.”

Armstrong has been under pressure from various fronts to confess. Wealthy supporters of Livestrong, the charity he founded after surviving testicular cancer, have been trying to persuade him to come forward so he could clear his conscience and save the organization from further damage, one person with knowledge of the situation said.

Several legal cases stand in the way of a confession, the people familiar with the situation said. Among the obstacles is a federal whistle-blower case in which Armstrong and several team officials from his United States Postal Service cycling team are accused of defrauding the government by allowing doping on the squad when the team’s contract with the Postal Service clearly stated that any doping would constitute default of their agreement.

Herman said the option to confess to antidoping officials was not currently on the table. However, the people familiar with the situation said Armstrong, 41, was in fact moving toward confessing and had even been in discussions with the United States Anti-Doping Agency. Armstrong had met with Travis Tygart, the agency’s chief executive, in an effort to mitigate the lifetime ban he received for playing a lead role in doping on his Tour-winning teams, according to one person briefed on the situation.

Armstrong has hopes of competing in triathlons and running events, but those competitions are often sanctioned by organizations that adhere to the World Anti-Doping Code, under which Armstrong received his lifetime ban. According to the World Anti-Doping Code, an athlete might be eligible for a reduced punishment if he fully confesses and details how he doped, who helped him dope and how he got away with doping. But a reduced lifetime ban might decrease only to eight years or four, at best, antidoping experts said.

Armstrong is also facing two other civil lawsuits, one that involves the Dallas-based insurance company SCA Promotions, which is trying to recoup millions of dollars it covered when Armstrong won multiple Tours. The company withheld a $5 million bonus from Armstrong after he won the 2004 Tour because of doping accusations that surfaced in the book “L.A. Confidentiel: Les Secrets de Lance Armstrong,” which was published in France. Armstrong sued the company, and the case was settled for $7.5 million. SCA Promotions is now asking for $12 million back — the $7.5 million plus $4.5 million it paid for Armstrong’s other Tour victories.

Armstrong is also being sued by the British newspaper The Sunday Times for more than $1.5 million over the settlement of a libel case. In that matter, the newspaper had paid Armstrong nearly $500,000 after it published claims from “L.A. Confidentiel” that he had used performance-enhancing drugs.

But what worries Armstrong and his lawyers most, two of the people with knowledge of the situation said, is that he could face charges of perjury if he confesses because in sworn testimony in the SCA case he said he had never doped.

Before coming forward, Armstrong would need assurances from the Justice Department that he would not be prosecuted for those crimes, those two people said.

Herman said he has plans to discuss Armstrong’s next move when Armstrong returns from Hawaii, where he has been spending time with his family out of the public eye. He has been in limbo since antidoping officials issued their report on him. A week after the report was released, Armstrong’s sponsors, including Nike and other longtime supporters, abandoned him. Soon after, he cut all ties with his charity.

“He’s doing O.K. for a guy that has had his livelihood and his life torn from him, but he’s very strong,” Herman said.

[From The NYT]

The NYT also says that Lance is skittish about whether or not the Department of Justice is going to get involved, and I’m assuming Lance is really just trying to figure out the best way to completely limit the damage. I kind of think it’s a pipe dream for Lance if he thinks he’s going to be able to in any way rehabilitate his image, or to even be able to get out of this mess without doing jail time (for perjury, maybe even for fraud) and huge financial losses, not to mention the complete loss of respect by the public at large. He became the face of the “falsely accused of doping” for a decade, and the bigger they are, the harder they fall.

Just to give you a taste of how angry people are – and how angry they will continue to be – I was watching CNN’s Reliable Sources yesterday (it’s the Howard Kurtz media-watchdog show), and Kurtz (who is normally mild-mannered and wonkish) was pissing mad about this NYT story. Kurtz called it out for what it was – Lance trying to see what the public reaction would be to a full (or partial) confession. Kurtz recalled the times he interviewed Armstrong and said that the stunning realization that Armstrong had repeatedly and unblinkingly LIED HIS FACE OFF was not pleasant, and a mea culpa tour would not cover the betrayal many feel. Kurtz also published a piece on the Armstrong thing here, at The Daily Beast.

Photos courtesy of WENN.

As you may know, Lance Armstrong may be stripped of his seven Tour De France titles as a result of an investigation by the US Anti-Doping Agency. In August, Lance refused to participate any further in the USADA investigation. We heard back then that he would have his titles revoked, but it hasn’t happened yet.

Just last week the agency put out a report on Lance in which they concluded that “The evidence shows beyond any doubt that the U.S. Postal Service Pro Cycling Team ran the most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that sport has ever seen.” The report was a whopping 1,000 pages and included testimony from 11 of Lance’s teammates. One of them is Tyler Hamilton, a 41 year-old who was in the Tour de France with Lance in 1999, 2000, and 2001. Hamilton has a new book out called The Secret Race: Inside the Hidden World of the Tour de France: Doping, Cover-ups, and Winning at All Costs. As part of his promotion for his book, Hamilton was on Anderson Cooper 360 talking about his experiences doping with Lance. I have to say the guy was a total dud. He seemed to have no personality whatsoever. Hamilton says that Lance got him started doping, that he was pressured to do it to stay on the team, and that they were able to game the system by having good doctors on hand. They would sometimes get cortisone pills delivered to them by people close to Lance and they would time everything in order to pass the tests. Here’s more, and a video is below:

On Friday night’s edition of Anderson Cooper 360, former pro cyclist Tyler Hamilton said “the first time I ever blood doped was with Lance Armstrong.”

Hamilton rode with Armstrong for several years as part of the U.S. Postal Service-sponsored team, and is currently under a nine-year-long ban from competition because of his own failed drug tests.

Talking to Cooper on his CNN show, the author of The Secret Race insisted he doped “so I could be a good teammate for Lance.”

He also said Armstrong applied intense pressure on other, younger teammates to dope, something the United States Anti-Doping Agency chronicled in its scathing report about the seven-time Tour de France winner.

As RadarOnline.com has been reporting, Armstrong has been stripped of his Tour de France titles. He is also banned from competing in any competition in any sport covered by the USADA.

Armstrong remains defiant, insisting he never did anything wrong.

[From Radar Online]

In the interview, Tyler was asked if he sees Lance as a hero still despite the doping (that’s at 7:00 in the video below.) Tyler launched into a story about how Lance ran into him at a restaurant in Colorado and tried to intimidate him. I wasn’t impressed by that guy or his story at all.

As for how I feel about this story – I’m conflicted. It really looks like this guy Tyler is too and that he’s just putting out this book to defend himself and make some cash. He’s so blase about everything it’s like he feels obligated but his heart isn’t in it. Lance has called this a “witch hunt,” and some people say that it’s being driven by the personal vendetta of one man, USADA head Travis Tygart. So many people have rolled over on Lance, and the investigation has so much evidence, that it’s easy to believe the team was doping and gaming the system. Why are they being exposed and punished now, though? Why is it all falling on Armstrong’s shoulders? Why weren’t there better controls in place to catch this when it was happening? The sad thing is that we’ll never know if they would have won all those biking titles on their own. They’re still incredible athletes, but they cheated and may have stolen the glory from another team that played fair. We’ll never know, though.

Here’s the interview with Tyler Hamilton. He’s so hot until he opens his mouth. Is that harsh?

Photo credit: WENN.com

Sheryl Crow is 50 years old, y’all, and her bod is fantastic, isn’t it? I know I said the same thing last time I wrote about her, but damn. Girl looks good. Sheryl appeared on Katie Couric’s new talk show on Monday, and several topics came up. First up on the agenda were some more details on Sheryl’s benign brain tumor that she revealed a few months ago as a source of memory loss (she was forgetting some of her lyrics during live shows). Sheryl now suspects that her heavy cell phone usage caused her tumor, which is a tricky subject that we’ll discuss below. Oh, and she also talks a bit about her ex-fiancé, Lance Armstrong, and her reaction to how he was stripped of his Tour de France titles (all seven of them) after a doping investigation. Sheryl handles that very sensitive topic quite well — especially considering there’s a lot of history between her and Lance. Here are some excerpts:

Her tumor may have been caused cell usage: “There are no doctors that will confirm that. [But] I do have the theory that it’s possible that it’s related to that. I [used to spend] hours on the old archaic cell phones.” Crow, who says the tumor is in a part of her brain near where she often held her phone, says she started to suspect something was wrong when she began spacing out on stage, forgetting lyrics and generally feeling “mushy.”

On her fear: “I [was] worried I had an early [onset] Alzheimer’s,” she confesses. In the end, Crow says the non-cancerous tumor is “nothing I have to worry about,” but, for the breast cancer survivor finding out she had a tumor was “definitely a sobering moment.”

On Lance Armstrong: “He’s someone that I really care about. I know how hard he worked to win those titles, and you know, it was hard to watch. I felt bad. I felt bad for him, I felt bad for his family and I kinda felt like the rest of America. He is a hero that we watched and looked up to and admire. He probably [got] tired of the whole fight. He is probably tired of all the scrutiny, I imagine.”

[From People and Hollywood Life]

It sounds like Sheryl is firmly in the camp that doesn’t believe Lance was doping to enhance his performance. She evidently still has a lot of goodwill towards him and her loyalty shows through her words.

As for the cell phone link to brain tumors (benign or otherwise), that’s such scary business. I guess Sheryl’s talking about those giant “archaic” cell phones that were around in the 1990s, but just last year, the World Health Organization listed cellular devices “in the same ‘carcinogenic hazard’ category as lead, engine exhaust and chloroform.” That is, WHO has found evidence to link cell use to a few different types of brain cancer, which makes me grateful that my iPhone 4 microphone keeps breaking and forcing me to use speaker mode only. Small blessings, folks.

Photos courtesy of WENN

I don’t know enough about doping and sports to have a strong opinion either way as to which athlete is doping and who is falsely accused. As I watched some of the track & field events during the Olympics, I was struck by how many athletes – from several different countries, but mostly the US – have been accused of doping, and what a shame that it is, and how there will always be an asterisk beside some of these names. From a purely outsider point of view, I simply don’t understand why athletes even try to take performance-enhancing drugs – the risks surely outweigh the benefits, from where I sit.

Anyway, Lance Armstrong is going to be stripped of his seven Tour De France titles because Armstrong has just announced that he will no longer be participating in the USADA’s (US Anti-Doping Agency) investigation and prosecution. Since Armstrong will not be participating any longer, the USADA can strip him of all of his titles, his Olympic medal, plus they can take away the money he made from endorsements too, I think.

Lance Armstrong has quit the race. The seven-time Tour de France victor announced Thursday he will no longer fight his investigation by the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency – meaning he will be banned for life from ever competing again, reports CNN.

Late Thursday, the USADA confirmed it will also strip Armstrong of all results since Aug. 1, 1998, reports USA Today.

“There comes a point in every man’s life when he has to say, ‘Enough is enough.’ For me, that time is now,” Armstrong, 40, said in a statement.

This latest turn of events began to unfold in June, when the quasi-government agency (recognized as the official anti-doping agency for Olympic, Pan American and Paralympic sports in the U.S.) accused Armstrong of using, possessing, trafficking and giving to others performance-enhancing drugs, as well as covering up doping violations.

Armstrong, as he had in the past, vigorously denied the charges.

“I have never doped, and, unlike many of my accusers, I have competed as an endurance athlete for 25 years with no spike in performance, passed more than 500 drug tests and never failed one,” he said on his website, where he also accused the USADA of wanting to “dredge up discredited allegations,” which he called “baseless” and “motivated by spite.”

Armstrong, who has never been convicted of any doping charges, had been accused of doping before by other disgraced U.S. riders, including Floyd Landis and Tyler Hamilton. In February, the U.S. Justice Department closed a criminal investigation after reviewing allegations against Armstrong, apparently for lack of evidence that he used performance-enhancing drugs.

Following news reports of Armstrong’s decision Thursday, USADA chief executive officer Travis T. Tygart issued the following statement: “It is a sad day for all of us who love sport and our athletic heroes. This is a heartbreaking example of how the win-at-all costs culture of sport, if left unchecked, will overtake fair, safe and honest competition, but for clean athletes, it is a reassuring reminder that there is hope for future generations to compete on a level playing field without the use of performance-enhancing drugs.”

Of losing his titles, Armstrong said: “I know who won those seven Tours. The toughest event in the world where the strongest man wins. Nobody can ever change that. Especially Travis Tygart.”

[From People]

The Today Show led with a segment on this subject this morning, and their sports/doping analyst said that the USADA had lined up ten witnesses – mostly former teammates of Armstrong – to testify against him, and that if the USADA’s investigation and prosecution had gone further, it probably would have gotten really bad for Armstrong. I never really had an opinion either way about whether Armstong was a doper – I know a lot of people do, including my mom who was oddly convinced all along that he was using performance-enhancing drugs. In any case, this is a dark day for sports and for people who held Armstrong in great esteem.

Photos courtesy of WENN.