Log in:  

Register

Armstrong's comeback reasons reviewed by Walsh/Ballester

A place to discuss all things related to current professional road races. Here, you can also touch on the latest news relating to professional road racing. A doping discussion free forum.

Moderators: Eshnar, Irondan, King Boonen, Red Rick, Pricey_sky

Armstrong's comeback reasons reviewed by Walsh/Ballester

04 Jun 2009 13:01

I have not read the book--don't know if it available, but the comments noted in this article are mostly pitiful. armstrong has committed great effort and money to livestrong, and he is entitled to make a living. to question his motives is to question everyone's motives--who ever does anything for the sake of it?? like these two rats--just for the betterment of man they write?? as for political aspirations, so?? in this country, it is not leaders that run for office, but self promoting need bags having a career anchor to impact others. if lance is interested, then so be it. that this return is twisted into something with a negative intent along those lines or having more money is purely speculative and shows what kind of people are behind this overt negative parade against armstrong. he recently noted that he felt, back in november, that he could win the tour and no longer thanks that way. he made a mistake coming back, and I think he realizes that now. most importantly however, he did not require this comeback to make money.

who are these two monkeys to question motive? hell, this is easy, I am going to write a book detailing how these two nitwits are nothing more than the attention seeking saps they accuse of armstrong and are using his fame to their monetary gain. it would be easy, a bunch of speculation and fabrications and I have a book as good as their feeble minds can produce.

my apologies for the vent, my first time on this forum but have had it with that pair that have admitted misinterpreting events regarding armstrong and generally being sophomores. ...and now it continues.

cyclingnews, please, pretty please with sugar on it, keep these two or any reference out of your articles.
spiderpig
Newly Registered Member
 
Posts: 1
Joined: 04 Jun 2009 12:36

04 Jun 2009 13:24

Who are the donkey about they write that well documented book?
User avatar nobody
Junior Member
 
Posts: 151
Joined: 14 May 2009 08:22

04 Jun 2009 13:41

Walsh is doing his usual summer thing ..... write about LA and doping.

It's a great way to supplement the income! It beats selling lemonade I suppose :)

.... and I take it about as seriously:rolleyes:
lostintime
Member
 
Posts: 562
Joined: 19 Mar 2009 15:32

04 Jun 2009 13:42

spiderpig wrote:
. . . who are these two monkeys to question motive? . . .



These two monkeys be H A T E R S. Nothing else really matters.
SpeedWay
Member
 
Posts: 331
Joined: 25 Mar 2009 15:43

04 Jun 2009 13:48

spiderpig wrote:hell, this is easy, I am going to write a book detailing how these two nitwits are nothing more than the attention seeking saps they accuse of armstrong and are using his fame to their monetary gain. it would be easy, a bunch of speculation and fabrications and I have a book as good as their feeble minds can produce.


Go for it; freedom of the press. However, I have a feeling that these two "monkeys" have much more follow through than you do.

With Armstrong's TdF aspirations all but done, he has an amazing chance to put Livestrong at the forefront, but as of yet, the only thing that I've seen has been his yellow and black helmet. Not talking to the press, not posting anything about Livestrong on Twitter; he should be eating this coverage up to promote his organization.

On top of it, he could easily make a living while donating every cent of his publicity earnings and salary to cancer research. I for one am glad someone is questioning his motives for coming back, and they are just saying what I am sure many are thinking. Sure it's controversial and biased, but how many copies would they sell if their message was "Lance came back because he loves cycling?"

Feel free to prove us wrong, Lance, but so far the comeback has been an epic fail on the cycling front and the cancer research front. The only improvement seems to be the size of his wallet.
jmnikricket
New Member
 
Posts: 26
Joined: 28 Apr 2009 20:44

04 Jun 2009 13:58

SpeedWay wrote:These two monkeys be H A T E R S. Nothing else really matters.



Mate I'm with you. The fact that Armstrong "steals" money under the guise of a charity is not important. Its not for public knowledge. These guys have to go !
___

"Since last summer, his [non-profit] Livestrong foundation has a lucrative segment," said Ballester. "And when Armstrong receives 200,000 Euro to host a conference, he puts it into his pocket - unlike the leading cancer experts, who will donate the money."
User avatar whiteboytrash
Member
 
Posts: 525
Joined: 17 Mar 2009 14:08

04 Jun 2009 14:05

Don't know about two monkies, but we certainly have more than our share of the three wise monkies on here. Doubt if there's enough sand in the Sahara to bury all thoseheads in.

I predict a flurry of intense twitter activity! :lol:
According to Ballester and Walsh, Armstrong, after unsuccessfully bidding for shares of the company holding the Tour de France, came back to cycling to increase his personal wealth.

"Since last summer, his [non-profit] Livestrong foundation has a lucrative segment," said Ballester. "And when Armstrong receives 200,000 Euro to host a conference, he puts it into his pocket - unlike the leading cancer experts, who will donate the money."

The authors also claim that Armstrong has a political objective: become the governor of Texas in 2014. In the second half of the Book, Walsh and Ballester ask sports politicians about Armstrong's return, with former French sports secretary Jean-François Lamour saying, "This comeback is not a very good sign. It's even a kind of a masquerade."

Moreover, Ballester accused the organisers of the Tour de France, ASO, to privilege their business over the sports aspect at the Grande Boucle. "ASO's new strategy is more turned towards business than the credibility of the sport," said Walsh. "In allowing Armstrong to come back to the Tour, will be coming back also the ghosts of the past: doping, scheming, bribery... They must have weighed pros and cons, more important and less important, and decided in favour of Armstrong's return."


Starting to look that way, with the ASO, I'm afraid. Even appeasing his highness with the muzzling of L'Equipe.
Mellow Velo
Veteran
 
Posts: 9,592
Joined: 11 Mar 2009 09:48

04 Jun 2009 14:11

It's obvious his comeback is partly motivated by future political aspirations. That was the motivation for the Catlin program. Now he hopes twittering about all the drug tests he will take will be enough. Seems like he has to do well at the Tour to get the maximum effect though.
User avatar Epicycle
Member
 
Posts: 809
Joined: 19 Mar 2009 05:31

Ballester and Walsh,

04 Jun 2009 14:28

Armstrong's motives are irrelevant as long as he races clean.

The motives of Ballester and Walsh are obviously to milk Armstrong and his fame for whatever they can as long as he lasts. They must have been dancing for euros when he came out of retirement. They get another book and another year of interviews and mouthing off.
edlewusa
Newly Registered Member
 
Posts: 2
Joined: 04 Jun 2009 14:22

04 Jun 2009 14:42

edlewusa wrote:Armstrong's motives are irrelevant as long as he races clean.

How do you know he is racing clean? He has already backtracked and canceled the testing program with Don Catlin. With no explanation he changed the highest haematocrit testing result posted on his website. And he pulled a stalling maneuver during a surprise out of competition test.
User avatar Epicycle
Member
 
Posts: 809
Joined: 19 Mar 2009 05:31

04 Jun 2009 15:15

edlewusa wrote:Armstrong's motives are irrelevant as long as he races clean.


I disagree. When you say your motives are to promote cancer awareness and you don't promote cancer awareness, then I think that is deceiving. Moreover, when you pocket appearance money (appearances that were meant to promote cancer awareness) rather than donate it to your charity (Livestrong), then I think that is even worse than being deceitful. You're cheating all those Livestrong is meant to be supporting and lying to yourself about your motives for returning to the sport. In doing so, that raises questions about alternative motives. I'll leave the rest to your imagination.

I don't particularly care if he doped or not in the past. I prefer to take each person on their merits. Armstrong's recent actions are not that of a commendable person and I don't think he should be making personal gains under false pretences.
User avatar elapid
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,418
Joined: 18 Mar 2009 13:10

04 Jun 2009 15:30

jmnikricket wrote:Go for it; freedom of the press. However, I have a feeling that these two "monkeys" have much more follow through than you do.

With Armstrong's TdF aspirations all but done, he has an amazing chance to put Livestrong at the forefront, but as of yet, the only thing that I've seen has been his yellow and black helmet. Not talking to the press, not posting anything about Livestrong on Twitter; he should be eating this coverage up to promote his organization.

On top of it, he could easily make a living while donating every cent of his publicity earnings and salary to cancer research. I for one am glad someone is questioning his motives for coming back, and they are just saying what I am sure many are thinking. Sure it's controversial and biased, but how many copies would they sell if their message was "Lance came back because he loves cycling?"

Feel free to prove us wrong, Lance, but so far the comeback has been an epic fail on the cycling front and the cancer research front. The only improvement seems to be the size of his wallet.


Lance already has more $$ than he could ever need. He could find a lot more lucrative activities than riding a bike in the relative obscurity of the italian back roads.
User avatar Azdak6
Junior Member
 
Posts: 206
Joined: 24 Apr 2009 18:32
Location: Lisle IL USA

04 Jun 2009 15:34

edlewusa wrote:Armstrong's motives are irrelevant as long as he races clean.

The motives of Ballester and Walsh are obviously to milk Armstrong and his fame for whatever they can as long as he lasts. They must have been dancing for euros when he came out of retirement. They get another book and another year of interviews and mouthing off.



B and W have been completely exposed by this recent "book"--a combination of personal vendetta and publicity grubbing. These latest "charges" have as much substance as a fart on a windy day.
User avatar Azdak6
Junior Member
 
Posts: 206
Joined: 24 Apr 2009 18:32
Location: Lisle IL USA

04 Jun 2009 15:35

elapid wrote:I disagree. When you say your motives are to promote cancer awareness and you don't promote cancer awareness, then I think that is deceiving. Moreover, when you pocket appearance money (appearances that were meant to promote cancer awareness) rather than donate it to your charity (Livestrong), then I think that is even worse than being deceitful. You're cheating all those Livestrong is meant to be supporting and lying to yourself about your motives for returning to the sport. In doing so, that raises questions about alternative motives. I'll leave the rest to your imagination.

I don't particularly care if he doped or not in the past. I prefer to take each person on their merits. Armstrong's recent actions are not that of a commendable person and I don't think he should be making personal gains under false pretences.



Don't you think this is a narrow minded response? I mean, you are making the assumption that Armstrong didn't donate any of his appearance/speaking money to Livestrong. Do you know for sure that all of the money is in his personal bank account? How has he been deceitful?

From my perspective, LA has brought the sport lots of good publicity. Cancer is mentioned everytime his name comes up. The problem is that so many 'arm chair quarterbacks' want to discredit LA. For what? What has he done to personally harm them? NOTHING.

You have to admit, the guy rides hard. Remember, he's just riding a bike and look at the publicity it gets. Try focusing on the positive and stop trying to find something wrong with LA.

As for motives - WHO CARES??? How do his motives affect you and riding yoru bike?
mwbyrd
Junior Member
 
Posts: 173
Joined: 07 Apr 2009 02:15

04 Jun 2009 15:37

People getting angry over the press reporting the truth make me laugh...until I think about it a little, and then it makes me sick. Democracy cannot exist without a free press, and those who decry it support tyranny.
"Listen, my son. Trust no one! You can count on no one but yourself. Improve your skills, son. Harden your body. Become a number one man. Do not ever let anyone beat you!" -- Gekitotsu! Satsujin ken
User avatar BroDeal
Veteran
 
Posts: 13,318
Joined: 18 Mar 2009 00:41
Location: Above 5000 feet

Why on earth...

04 Jun 2009 15:43

does every poor sap think that if you are rich you should donate everything you make to charity? I just don't get it. He has done more for cancer research than any pitiful soul on this board, quite possibly the world. Why can't he keep some of the money or all of the money he makes. I also don't think that his comeback has been a failure, quite the opposite. 12th place in a grand tour at his age and time away after the crash and fracture. We should all be so lucky to ride like that. I am no Lance lover or appologist, but I do think that he is doing wonders for his cause...and who really cares about political ambitions? Is that such a terrible thing? I think not. In some peoples eyes he will never be in the right.
User avatar TRDean
Member
 
Posts: 1,834
Joined: 18 Mar 2009 10:20

04 Jun 2009 15:59

TRDean wrote:does every poor sap think that if you are rich you should donate everything you make to charity? I just don't get it. He has done more for cancer research than any pitiful soul on this board, quite possibly the world.


You make him sound like Mother Teresa.:o
A general question:
If he's pocketing money that any donator may believe is destined for charity, is that not fraud?



Azdak6 wrote:Lance already has more $$ than he could ever need. He could find a lot more lucrative activities than riding a bike in the relative obscurity of the italian back roads.


That Giro roads, I agree, are relatively obscure, to many followers of "the man".
Mellow Velo
Veteran
 
Posts: 9,592
Joined: 11 Mar 2009 09:48

Never said he was mother teresa...

04 Jun 2009 16:12

And I am not nieve enough to think that the Giro or any other race cares what he does with the money. They are inviting him for the increased attention to their races...period. Was it in his contract with the race that all appearance money go to cancer research? Doubt it.
User avatar TRDean
Member
 
Posts: 1,834
Joined: 18 Mar 2009 10:20

04 Jun 2009 16:16

TRDean wrote:And I am not nieve enough to think that the Giro or any other race cares what he does with the money. They are inviting him for the increased attention to their races...period. Was it in his contract with the race that all appearance money go to cancer research? Doubt it.


Umm.....you didn't read any of the "Comeback" press releases or distribution materials did you?
Thoughtforfood
 

04 Jun 2009 16:18

Why don't you tell me what I am missing?
User avatar TRDean
Member
 
Posts: 1,834
Joined: 18 Mar 2009 10:20

Next

Return to Professional road racing

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Eshnar, faucon, Flax_Generous, Google [Bot], Iguana, myrideissteelerthanyours, Pricey_sky, staubsauger and 63 guests

Back to top