Armstrong media machine

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

Bilirubin

BANNED
Nov 3, 2010
77
0
0
Race Radio said:
Where did I say they were being paid?

Regardless their clueless comments are enough of a smear, by this point you would think they would start getting embarrassed. You almost feel sorry for them
You said talking points would appear by "fans" (your quotation marks) and then you went on to say they are paid by public strategies.

This is the second thread this evening in which you make a strong insinuation that you later back away from. You can't be surprised if some people conclude you're a troll.

But I do thank you for the article. It challenges the cynical spin some put forward about his charity. It shows us this is not just a game.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
JRTinMA said:
Changing quotes is not cool.
There are many people that have BPC on their ignore list and do not want to see his words quoted. In order to avoid this I deleted his words and gave the reason why.
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,355
0
0
Changing quotes is expressedly against the rules. So should harassing another user on baseless accusations of being a former banned forum member.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
scribe said:
Changing quotes is expressedly against the rules. So should harassing another user on baseless accusations of being a former banned forum member.
Settle down

If you read his posts it is far from baseless, the guy is repeating the same garbage that BPC did, going after the same posters etc.. It has been clear that we can delete the content of posts. It is not like I wrote a bunch of new paragraphs.
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,355
0
0
Race Radio said:
Settle down

If you read his posts it is far from baseless. It has been clear that we can delete the content of posts. It is not like I wrote a bunch of new paragraphs.
No. You changed his quote in an baseless effort to harass him. You have been warned for this behaviour before.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
scribe said:
No. You changed his quote in an baseless effort to harass him. You have been warned for this behaviour before.
You must be very upset that JRT changed my post in a "baseless effort to harass me" Unlike my deletion he added an entirely new wording in order to bait me into responding.
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,355
0
0
Race Radio said:
You must be very upset that JRT changed my post in a "baseless effort to harass me" Unlike my deletion he added an entirely new wording in order to bait me into responding.
He should get a warning, you should get some time off. Them's the rules.
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,355
0
0
Geez. Is this topic even discuss-able? Can this be merged with the official Lance Armstrong thread? It would immediately triple my post count in that monster of a thread.
 
Jan 10, 2010
37
0
0
no...

scribe said:
Geez. Is this topic even discuss-able?
Nope it's not and a very disappointing, tortured post from RR.

The hate is welling up inside Race who will shortly be on the news after going postal at a McDonald's somewhere in SoCal.
 
May 14, 2010
5,306
2
0
Gee, when I read threads like this one, why do I feel I'm watching Armstrong and LeMond go at each other? Or is that Armstrong and Landis? I guess we can't just all get along. I'm going for another bowl of popcorn.

EDIT: By the way, I agree with Scribe. What's good for the goose, and all that.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
turnkey303 said:
Nope it's not and a very disappointing, tortured post from RR.

The hate is welling up inside Race who will shortly be on the news after going postal at a McDonald's somewhere in SoCal.
GO Race GO give em some:D:D
 
Jun 17, 2009
545
0
0
Race Radio said:
For years whenever Armstrong needed to spin his way out of a mess the same talking points would appear simultaneously in articles by friendly journalists and message board posts written by "Fans". Heart the size of a pumpkin, trains harder then everyone, most tested, LeMond is a drunk, etc.
"It was Livestrong that was the real winner at the Tour. Nike had lined the course with Livestrong banners and covered it with supporters' messages in bright yellow paint ("Lost my leg but not my courage"). Yellow rubber bracelets were everywhere. A controversial stunt that morning, in which Armstrong and his RadioShack teammates broke Tour rules by donning black jerseys to honor the 28 million people worldwide living with cancer, had become big news on the biggest day of the Tour."

Looks to me like he spun his way out quite well that day, I think he should ride next years TDF also, its good for the sport of internet cycling, especially if Contadoper gets banned.

Looking forwrad to 2011



Hugh
 
I think the other massive crock in this epic story is the awareness sham. To be honest although Armstrong raises the profile of cancer and himself people still wouldn't know the difference between stage 2 ovarian cancer vs myeloid leukaemias or the treatments or preventions for the various forms of cancer. People bang on that awareness is a cure. It's not. It's also not prevention

Livestrong may have made the word cancer popular but people certainly have no idea about what is involved in the various types of cancer. It's a sham. It's unfortunate because I truly believe he meant well for the organisation upon inception.
 
Apr 20, 2009
960
0
0
tubularglue said:
This seems to be a personal attack on race radio

I am enjoying this thread

No need to try and instigate in getting it locked

Jmo
an attack? It's information he has provided in the past.
 
thehog said:
I think the other massive crock in this epic story is the awareness sham. To be honest although Armstrong raises the profile of cancer and himself people still wouldn't know the difference between stage 2 ovarian cancer vs myeloid leukaemias or the treatments or preventions for the various forms of cancer. People bang on that awareness is a cure. It's not. It's also not prevention

Livestrong may have made the word cancer popular but people certainly have no idea about what is involved in the various types of cancer. It's a sham. It's unfortunate because I truly believe he meant well for the organisation upon inception.
first sensible post in this thread - something about a nail, hammer and head.


back to the carry-on and frivolities...
 
thehog said:
I think the other massive crock in this epic story is the awareness sham. To be honest although Armstrong raises the profile of cancer and himself people still wouldn't know the difference between stage 2 ovarian cancer vs myeloid leukaemias or the treatments or preventions for the various forms of cancer. People bang on that awareness is a cure. It's not. It's also not prevention

Livestrong may have made the word cancer popular but people certainly have no idea about what is involved in the various types of cancer. It's a sham. It's unfortunate because I truly believe he meant well for the organisation upon inception.
Well as I actually HAVE myeloid luekaemia Im pretty sure I at least know the difference. I am lucky - for my condition there is a drug treatment available. But its super expensive, and getting the government/health fund to pay for it involves a whole battle all on its own.

In truth - raising awareness matters a whole lot - but thats not all that Livestrong does.

Cancer treatments, lifestyle decisions, diet, funding, health insurance, ... just surviving .... they all take money and knowledge. Learning to live with cancer is a whole new ball game. Governments accross the world have loads of support groups and insurance and assistance to help people - but loads of red tape as well. Sorting through that (in time - because time is super important when sometimes you dont have that much left) is incredibly hard.

Livestrong actually HELPS people access that support. In actual physical ways. They have information packs, support lines, people ..... they do good work.

Whether its a good use of funds for all the money they raise - well that would be up to an auditor. They certainly wouldnt be the only charity around the world that spends loads on admin and expenses for the 'directors' - but I guess its up to each person who donates or buys a bracelet whether they want to support the cause.

Yes - I do think Lance doped. I do think he should answer to the cycling bodies for that ..... but I also think he has done an enormous amount of good for the world as well.

(and no, I am not BPC)
 
AussieGoddess said:
Well as I actually HAVE myeloid luekaemia Im pretty sure I at least know the difference. I am lucky - for my condition there is a drug treatment available. But its super expensive, and getting the government/health fund to pay for it involves a whole battle all on its own.

In truth - raising awareness matters a whole lot - but thats not all that Livestrong does.

Cancer treatments, lifestyle decisions, diet, funding, health insurance, ... just surviving .... they all take money and knowledge. Learning to live with cancer is a whole new ball game. Governments accross the world have loads of support groups and insurance and assistance to help people - but loads of red tape as well. Sorting through that (in time - because time is super important when sometimes you dont have that much left) is incredibly hard.

Livestrong actually HELPS people access that support. In actual physical ways. They have information packs, support lines, people ..... they do good work.

Whether its a good use of funds for all the money they raise - well that would be up to an auditor. They certainly wouldnt be the only charity around the world that spends loads on admin and expenses for the 'directors' - but I guess its up to each person who donates or buys a bracelet whether they want to support the cause.

Yes - I do think Lance doped. I do think he should answer to the cycling bodies for that ..... but I also think he has done an enormous amount of good for the world as well.

(and no, I am not BPC)
I agree with most of what you say but the conundrum that lies at the centre of the whole Lance/Livestrong story is this. Is it ok for people to use their success/fame for good if how they achieved that success/fame was done in a fraudlunt manner and what they then stand for is false. Are we ok with business people giving loads of money to charity if the money was illgotten through illegal business practices etc and then potraying themselves as wholesome, ethical people.

I agree with The Hog when he said that the LA foundation was initially set up with good intentions but once Lance won the first Tour it became something else entirely, a shield. Whether this was pre-planned or just happened naturally is another serious question.

I have never had a problem with the charity per se, its when it has been absued as a method of deflecting relevant questions in terms of doping.
 
May 10, 2009
4,638
1
0
pmcg76 said:
I agree with most of what you say but the conundrum that lies at the centre of the whole Lance/Livestrong story is this. Is it ok for people to use their success/fame for good if how they achieved that success/fame was done in a fraudlunt manner and what they then stand for is false. Are we ok with business people giving loads of money to charity if the money was illgotten through illegal business practices etc and then potraying themselves as wholesome, ethical people.

I agree with The Hog when he said that the LA foundation was initially set up with good intentions but once Lance won the first Tour it became something else entirely, a shield. Whether this was pre-planned or just happened naturally is another serious question.

I have never had a problem with the charity per se, its when it has been absued as a method of deflecting relevant questions in terms of doping.
I've seen RR with an interesting take on this - that it was set up when they thought Lance would never race again, and would thus need some income.
RR could maybe help me out here.......
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
pmcg76 said:
I agree with The Hog when he said that the LA foundation was initially set up with good intentions but once Lance won the first Tour it became something else entirely, a shield. Whether this was pre-planned or just happened naturally is another serious question.

I have never had a problem with the charity per se, its when it has been absued as a method of deflecting relevant questions in terms of doping.
It was never set up with good intentions. It was always meant to be a way for Armstrong to earn a living in case he could not return to the sport.
 
May 10, 2009
4,638
1
0
Race Radio said:
It was never set up with good intentions. It was always meant to be a way for Armstrong to earn a living in case he could not return to the sport.
And he had this typed while i typed the previous post....:eek:
 
Oct 18, 2009
456
0
0
pmcg76 said:
................................
Are we ok with business people giving loads of money to charity if the money was illgotten through illegal business practices etc and then potraying themselves as wholesome, ethical people.
...........................
Most of the world seems to be OK with that as long as they get their bread buttered too. From what I've read on this site I think that Lances first 3-4 victories were driven by compeitive desire and typical sporting ideals, and then after that he and Johan were just in it for the money. And thats what ****ed everyone off. Dope and win the TDF? = Fine, we cycling fans wouldn't expect anything else anyway. Dope and win the TDF simply to line your own pockets and rip off everyone who loves cycling? = tsk tsk Now you're going down.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
masking_agent The Clinic 2
B The Clinic 4

ASK THE COMMUNITY