Armstrong media machine

[Bilirubin]

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.

 

[Race Radio]

-----BPC----

Did you get a new IP address again?

 

[JRTinMA]

Did I get called out again?

Changing quotes is not cool.

 

[Race Radio]

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.

 

[scribe]

Changing quotes is expressedly against the rules. So should harassing another user on baseless accusations of being a former banned forum member.

 

[Race Radio]

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.

 

[scribe]

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.

 

[Race Radio]

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.

 

[scribe]

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.

 

[scribe]

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.

 

[turnkey303]

no...

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.

 

[Maxiton]

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.

 

[Benotti69]

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

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

Everybody want to stop with the personal stuff and get back to discussing the linked article?

Actually, that is not just a suggestion......

Susan

 

[hughmoore]

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

 

[thehog]

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.

 

[eleven]

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.

 

[Archibald]

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...

 

[AussieGoddess]

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)

 

[Digger]

It's the comments at the end of the article that drive me mental. Not a clue whatsoever.

 

[pmcg76]

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.

 

[Digger]

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.......

 

[Race Radio]

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.

 

[Digger]

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....

 

[online-rider]

................................
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.