Armstrong's comeback reasons reviewed by Walsh/Ballester

[spiderpig]

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.

 

[nobody]

Who are the donkey about they write that well documented book?

 

[lostintime]

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

 

[SpeedWay]

. . . who are these two monkeys to question motive? . . .

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

 

[jmnikricket]

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.

 

[whiteboytrash]

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."

 

[Mellow Velo]

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.

 

[Epicycle]

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.

 

[edlewusa]

Ballester and Walsh,

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.

 

[Epicycle]

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.

 

[elapid]

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.

 

[Azdak6]

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.

 

[Azdak6]

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.

 

[mwbyrd]

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?

 

[BroDeal]

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.

 

[TRDean]

Why on earth...

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.

 

[Mellow Velo]

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.
A general question:
If he's pocketing money that any donator may believe is destined for charity, is that not fraud?

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".

 

[TRDean]

Never said he was mother teresa...

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.

 

[Anonymous]

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?

 

[TRDean]

Why don't you tell me what I am missing?

 

[Anonymous]

Why don't you tell me what I am missing?

Because I am not your research assistant.

 

[rhubroma]

The absence of some sane cynicism is soooooo boring. Purity desn't exist, to believe so is child's stuff. It's all propaganda, everthing is propaganda. Nothing is done with out interests involved. Man does not try to save the universe, without there being something to gain from it.

And we're dealing with a guy that chased down Simeoni in front of the world's TV. Please, just sooooo boring...

 

[BikeCentric]

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.

The Giro organizers paid L.A. $2 million in appearance fees alone. If you really know "more lucrative" ways to make a minimum of $2 million guaranteed in less than 3 weeks of work then I expect you to get off this board and get to it. I would love to know your secrets but I'm a professional money manager myself and wouldn't expect you to reveal them.

 

[TRDean]

Very funny...I never read where he was going to donate his start monies to charity. To be honest I don't really care. It seems to me that a lot of people want Lance to be like Mother Theresa...Make a big comeback, donate every cent he makes, and still have time to do a meet and greet with every politician he can. I think he has done quite a bit of cancer awareness...which is what his comeback was about. I wonder, how much money has been donated to cancer research because of him coming back? I aske this in total seriousness. Like I said before, I don't like Lance, and I never have...but it gets to the point that some people attack him at every level. I think he doped, I think he is an alpha jerk, but I can overlook that if there is more cancer awareness.

 

[Anonymous]

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

So he gets paid big $$ for speaking about cancer at conferences? But how much more revenue dollars and publicity does that bring in when you get LA, himself, to come out and speak? Like it or not, $200k is small beans at the potential in $$$'s he can bring to an event, be it a conference on cancer or a bike race.

And are any of us his accountant? How does anyone know how much he does or doesn't donate to his foundation?

But with all this critisism by these two authors I'd like to know how much of the proceeds from their books sales have they and will they give back to charity? If they are already, that's great. If not, is that not hypocritical?

And as a former recent TX resident, anyone other than the current Governor would be an upgrade, imo!! haha!