• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Armstrong's comeback reasons reviewed by Walsh/Ballester

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Gee333 said:
And are any of us his accountant? How does anyone know how much he does or doesn't donate to his foundation?

We do know that his foundation has one of the worst efficiency percentages of any similar charity. 45% apparently goes to high salaries and high living. When I give money for a cause, I expect it to pay for the cause not for some jerk's luxury hotel and traveling expenses. I also do not expect people associated with the chartity to use it to personally enrich themselves.
 
The problem started with the Tour Down Under and the period just before where Armstrong made it clear for whatver reasons that he was racing for free and not on the Astana payroll. When it was later revealed that he was receiving 1 million in Australian dollars for his appearance/speaking fee it really minimized the riding for free statement. It really made it seem rather deceptive in that it implied that he was doing this all for the love of the sport and for spreading cancer awareness. Rather than volunteer himself the fact that he was receiving this appearance fee and likely received one at every race he's raced this season, he chose to promote the fact that he was riding for free.
 
Apr 10, 2009
594
0
0
Visit site
BroDeal said:
We do know that his foundation has one of the worst efficiency percentages of any similar charity. 45% apparently goes to high salaries and high living. When I give money for a cause, I expect it to pay for the cause not for some jerk's luxury hotel and traveling expenses. I also do not expect people associated with the chartity to use it to personally enrich themselves.

I think we have been through this before, but I will agree with TRDean. ALL charities can be more giving, period. If you give to any charity BroDeal, some people somewhere are using it to enrich themselves, if you don't believe that you are fooling yourself, (Bro)deal with it. I will state again I think Armstrong has done more for cancer research (monetarily as well as publicity wise) than all members on this board combined (even at 55% going to the cause), so for the sake of your own credibility give the guy some credit please. You are making yourselves look ridiculous.

As far as earning 2 million for 3 weeks work. That is a falacy, he wouldn't have received that appearance money if he had not performed like he has over the years (doping or not, that is another argument) and the publicity he has brought to the race. You need to breakdown that 2 million over hours trained and raced to win what he has to objectively qualify it's worth. Do you think they would give Voekler the same amount of appearance money? I think not. Now, was it a wise investment? You would need to ask Zomegnan, he might say no now, but obviously he thought it was when he offered it.

As far as the book is concerned, truth or not, they are making money off of Armstrong. Why don't they donate all of their profits to cancer research? Would they be willing? I think it would bolster their claims against Armstrong, but do you think they may be doing this for (gasp) monetary gains?
 
Mar 18, 2009
1,844
1
0
Visit site
That is a good point about the appearance fee issue negating the riding for free statements. I will still contend that he should get something for his efforts. He brings a lot of energy and money to cancer research and awareness...so if he makes a few bucks good for him.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,442
0
0
Visit site
mwbyrd said:
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?

No assumptions. This was widely reported in the Australian media after his one million dollar appearance fee for the TDU.

mwbyrd said:
How has he been deceitful?

He is being deceitful because he claims to be returning to the peloton to raise cancer awareness and then 1. does not raise cancer awareness, and 2. doesn't use the funds he gains from returning to the peloton to raise cancer awareness for his cancer foundation. That's deceitful. If he had never said he was returning to raise cancer awareness, then I wouldn't care what he did with the appearance fees. However, he did and that makes concerns over his appearance fees valid.

mwbyrd said:
Cancer is mentioned everytime his name comes up.

Cancer is not mentioned everytime Armstrong's name is mentioned. It would be lucky to be 1% of the time his name is mentioned. Did you read the reports of the TDU, TOC, Gila, and the Giro; watch the Giro on Universal? Close to nada on cancer awareness, Livestrong Foundation or anything else whenever Armstrong's name was mentioned, and it was mentioned a lot.

mwbyrd said:
The problem is that so many 'arm chair quarterbacks' want to discredit LA. For what? What has he done to personally harm them? NOTHING.

We are all arm chair critics, and fans, but hopefully well informed. What has Armstrong done to harm me? Have you read other threads and posts? For many members of this forum, his documented drug use, support of Omerta, overbearing control of the media, etc, etc have damaged the image of professional cycling and, what makes it worse than any other doped rider, Armstrong was in a position as the head of the peloton to have made a difference for the positive. He didn't and some of the magic of professional cycling was lost as a result. Read how many cynical posts are now written about fantastic performances on the road.

TRDean said:
does every poor sap think that if you are rich you should donate everything you make to charity?

No, not at all. But when you say your return to the peloton is to promote cancer awareness and you don't promote cancer awareness or use the proceeds of returning to the peloton to promote cancer awareness, then you leave yourself open to criticism.

TRDean said:
He has done more for cancer research than any pitiful soul on this board, quite possibly the world.

All due respect, but this is rubbish. You're just listening to the squeeky wheel. I work with cancer patients and in cancer research, and I can say this is completely untrue. However, I don't want to belittle his efforts and think the aims and achievements of Livestrong are admirable and praiseworthy.

TRDean said:
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.

As I said in my previous post, I try to take each person on their merits. I agree with you, I think 12th in a GT at 37 years of age, regardless of the collarbone fracture is a fantastic effort. I also couldn't care less about his political ambitions. I think he has done a lot of good things, but as stated above, I do not think he has raised cancer awareness during his comeback and I think it is wrong not to donate his appearance fees to Livestrong because this is the money he has received to appear on his comeback trail to raise cancer awareness. I think it is hypocritical not to do this.
 
Believe it or not, Armstrong benefits enormously from Walsh's accusations...
LA loves the media GOOD & BAD, as long as those publications include him...
I believe Walsh is just expressing a point of view that a lot of people already have (including myself), but not published in a book....
The motivation for this book? The same as his topic: MONEY
Why? He already knows those accusations won't change anything, so why not profiting from it?
Why now? A good complement for the TDF aftermath :cool:

I'm looking forward to read it:D
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,442
0
0
Visit site
slowoldman said:
As far as the book is concerned, truth or not, they are making money off of Armstrong. Why don't they donate all of their profits to cancer research? Would they be willing? I think it would bolster their claims against Armstrong, but do you think they may be doing this for (gasp) monetary gains?

If they were writing the book to raise cancer awareness, then yes they should donate part or all of the proceeds from the book to a cancer cause. But they are not. However, Armstrong returned to the peloton to raise cancer awareness. If he returned for the love of the sport, to make money, or whatever else, then I would have no beef with what he does with his appearance money. But because he returned to professional cycling to raise cancer awareness, part or all of his appearance fees to ride in professional bike races should be donated to Livestrong.
 
Apr 10, 2009
594
0
0
Visit site
elapid said:
He is being deceitful because he claims to be returning to the peloton to raise cancer awareness and then 1. does not raise cancer awareness, and 2. doesn't use the funds he gains from returning to the peloton to raise cancer awareness for his cancer foundation. That's deceitful. If he had never said he was returning to raise cancer awareness, then I wouldn't care what he did with the appearance fees. However, he did and that makes concerns over his appearance fees valid.



Cancer is not mentioned everytime Armstrong's name is mentioned. It would be lucky to be 1% of the time his name is mentioned. Did you read the reports of the TDU, TOC, Gila, and the Giro; watch the Giro on Universal? Close to nada on cancer awareness, Livestrong Foundation or anything else whenever Armstrong's name was mentioned.....



No, not at all. But when you say your return to the peloton is to promote cancer awareness and you don't promote cancer awareness or use the proceeds of returning to the peloton to promote cancer awareness, then you leave yourself open to criticism.



All due respect, but this is rubbish. You're just listening to the squeeky wheel. I work with cancer patients and in cancer research, and I can say this is completely untrue. However, I don't want to belittle his efforts and think the aims and achievements of Livestrong are admirable and praiseworthy.



As I said in my previous post, I try to take each person on their merits. I agree with you, I think 12th in a GT at 37 years of age, regardless of the collarbone fracture is a fantastic effort. I also couldn't care less about his political ambitions. I think he has done a lot of good things, but as stated above, I do not think he has raised cancer awareness during his comeback and I think it is wrong not to donate his appearance fees to Livestrong because this is the money he has received to appear on his comeback trail to raise cancer awareness. I think it is hyocritical not to do this.

elapid, first, if you work with cancer patients you are an angel. My family has been devastated by the beast. I helped care for my mom as she lost her battle to it, I have never had to deal with anything so hard in my life. Thank you wholehearedly for your work.

With regard to Armstrong not helping with cancer awareness. That is just not true, did he not meet with Australian politicians and visit the hospitals to see cancer patients? He announced plans for the Livestrong Global Campaign, or at least reiterated them. He has plans to meet with politicians all over the world at a conference in Paris after the Tour. He is not perfect by any means, in fact I don't really care for some of his personality traits (never been a big fan of arrogance) as well as those pesky doping rumors. His celebrity affords him an audience most will never receive and he is, to his credit, trying to use it for some good.
 
slowoldman said:
As far as earning 2 million for 3 weeks work. That is a falacy, he wouldn't have received that appearance money if he had not performed like he has over the years (doping or not, that is another argument) and the publicity he has brought to the race. You need to breakdown that 2 million over hours trained and raced to win what he has to objectively qualify it's worth.

Wrong. The original analysis was based on the comment that "Armstrong has more lucrative things he could do with his time than racing the Giro." Armstrong's prior investment of time in cycling training is simply a "sunk cost" at this junxure and has no bearing on how chooses to spend his time and resources in the future. My point was simply that chosing to race the Giro is a very lucrative way to earn money - 3 weeks of his time for $2 million. I think his choice to do it was extremely astute outside of how he chooses to spend the money.

You do not "breakdown that 2 million over hours trained" in the PAST; that's irrelevent to the analysis of future opportunities. This is a business decision and you need to apply a business methodology to his choice.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,442
0
0
Visit site
slowoldman said:
elapid, first, if you work with cancer patients you are an angel. My family has been devastated by the beast. I helped care for my mom as she lost her battle to it, I have never had to deal with anything so hard in my life. Thank you wholehearedly for your work.

With regard to Armstrong not helping with cancer awareness. That is just not true, did he not meet with Australian politicians and visit the hospitals to see cancer patients? He announced plans for the Livestrong Global Campaign, or at least reiterated them. He has plans to meet with politicians all over the world at a conference in Paris after the Tour. He is not perfect by any means, in fact I don't really care for some of his personality traits (never been a big fan of arrogance) as well as those pesky doping rumors. His celebrity affords him an audience most will never receive and he is, to his credit, trying to use it for some good.

Agree with you 100%. I think I said it in a previous post, what Armstrong does with Livestrong is truly admirable and praiseworthy. Yes, he did do everything you said while in Australia. But, and maybe this is being over-critical, on a personal level he is not raising cancer awareness. He twitters every day, but very few are telling cycling fans about cancer. With so many worthy causes out there, it's the kind of thing that you need to batter down the door everyday to raise people's awareness. However, giving credit where credit is due, may be he is concentrating his efforts on the big fish (governments and politicians) who have more power and money to make things happen more than your middle class individual. In regards to appearance money, I think you know where I stand on that.
 
Apr 10, 2009
594
0
0
Visit site
Not wrong. He would have never received the offer in the first place if he didn't do the things he did in the past, period. It is relevant no matter how much you say it isn't.:rolleyes:
 
Apr 10, 2009
594
0
0
Visit site
elapid said:
Agree with you 100%. I think I said it in a previous post, what Armstrong does with Livestrong is truly admirable and praiseworthy. Yes, he did do everything you said while in Australia. But, and maybe this is being over-critical, on a personal level he is not raising cancer awareness. He twitters every day, but very few are telling cycling fans about cancer. With so many worthy causes out there, it's the kind of thing that you need to batter down the door everyday to raise people's awareness. However, giving credit where credit is due, may be he is concentrating his efforts on the big fish (governments and politicians) who have more power and money to make things happen more than your middle class individual. In regards to appearance money, I think you know where I stand on that.

I think we are closer to agreement than the internet would have us believe.:)
 
slowoldman said:
Not wrong. He would have never received the offer in the first place if he didn't do the things he did in the past, period.

You fail Economics 101. What does this (correct) sentence of yours have to do with allocating the $2 million in Giro earnings over his past investment of time? The answer is nothing.

You are of course correct in your above sentence, but you are incorrect in your attempt to allocate the $2 million earned over his past investment in cycling. The point is simply that the prior investment is not applicable to the decision which is: race the Giro and collect $2million or look for "more lucrative opportunities."
 
Mar 17, 2009
8
0
0
Visit site
Geeze. Give Armstrong a friggin break here. I get writing a book about doping, and even understand accusing him of doping and citing the "evidence", even if it is anecdotal. But this latest bit of tripe (according to the article, because I haven't read the book), has crossed the line into the absurd.

Armstrong is an jerk because he wants to be paid? That is awful!

Armstrong actually took money to host a conference? Terrible! Those idiots should ask themselves...if they didn't want to pay Armstrong, then why didn't they just give the money to charity??? And what do they mean that "unlike the leading cancer experts, who will donate the money"? I hope they name names, and make a list of every cancer benefit/conference with an audit of where the money went. Otherwise....

I am no huge Armstrong fan, but this is nonsense.
 
Apr 10, 2009
594
0
0
Visit site
BikeCentric said:
You fail Economics 101. What does this (correct) sentence of yours have to do with allocating the $2 million in Giro earnings over his past investment of time? The answer is nothing.

You are of course correct in your above sentence, but you are incorrect in your attempt to allocate the $2 million earned over his past investment in cycling. The point is simply that the prior investment is not applicable to the decision which is: race the Giro and collect $2million or look for "more lucrative opportunities."

Actually I received an A grade in Economics 101, that was twenty five years ago though. :p My premise, is that you would have to credit past effort with the ability to make present income if in fact the present ability is based upon the past performance, which it is.
 
Wait and see what Walsh and Ballester come up with. They have uncovered all sorts of interesting things in other books. This will probably be no different, especially since it will examine half a dozen situations where the UCI covered up for Armstrong. I suspect the most interesting stuff will be about corruption and complicity in doping by the UCI and ASO.
 
slowoldman said:
Actually I received an A grade in Economics 101, that was twenty five years ago though. :p My premise, is that you would have to credit past effort with the ability to make present income if in fact the present ability is based upon the past performance, which it is.

We shouldn't argue about this because it's silly and you are of course correct from a logical point of view. My argument was just that based on the economic reality of the choice he made (Giro, other) ones prior sunk costs can't be factored in when we're talking about the decision in purely academic econ/business analysis but who cares really, I'm suppossed to come here to escape business crap. :D
 
Mar 18, 2009
745
0
0
Visit site
For what it's worth:

From CBS Sports - 18 January 2009 http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/messages/chrono/13030274
Armstrong has been paid an unspecified appearance fee from the state government, with Australian media reporting that it will eventually total one million Australian dollars, or $665,690.

"I'm not going to discuss that," Rann said. "All I can say is the benefits massively outweigh the costs and that's even before the race begins."

Armstrong did not specify the amount of his fee but said on Saturday that, contrary to what had been reported here last week, he was not donating the fee to his foundation but treating it as income: just as he has his other speaking and appearance fees since retirement.

"It's not simply showing up to a bike race and getting paid to race the bike," he said. "I'm not being paid to race. Is there a fee for other things? Yes but that's not any different than what I've done the last three or four years, actually longer than that."


And from PEZ Cycling News http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/?pg=fullstory&id=6691

While there were rumours last week about just how much appearance money the seven times Tour winner received for making the trip to Australia, he has put some of the cash straight back into the local community, making a $100,000 donation to the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, based in Melbourne, who specialise in research into how the disease affects young people. (Just in case you were wondering, the balance of the appearance fee will be going to the Lance Armstrong Foundation and directly to the fight against cancer.)
 
Mar 19, 2009
1,311
0
0
Visit site
No chance in hell of "clean" since last July when he started stockpiling... Maybe even earlier than that with some low dose HGH and test while he was bodybuilding in his garage.
 

Eva Maria

BANNED
May 24, 2009
387
0
0
Visit site
flyor64 said:
For what it's worth:

From CBS Sports - 18 January 2009 http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/messages/chrono/13030274
Armstrong has been paid an unspecified appearance fee from the state government, with Australian media reporting that it will eventually total one million Australian dollars, or $665,690.

"I'm not going to discuss that," Rann said. "All I can say is the benefits massively outweigh the costs and that's even before the race begins."

Armstrong did not specify the amount of his fee but said on Saturday that, contrary to what had been reported here last week, he was not donating the fee to his foundation but treating it as income: just as he has his other speaking and appearance fees since retirement.

"It's not simply showing up to a bike race and getting paid to race the bike," he said. "I'm not being paid to race. Is there a fee for other things? Yes but that's not any different than what I've done the last three or four years, actually longer than that."


And from PEZ Cycling News http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/?pg=fullstory&id=6691

While there were rumours last week about just how much appearance money the seven times Tour winner received for making the trip to Australia, he has put some of the cash straight back into the local community, making a $100,000 donation to the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, based in Melbourne, who specialise in research into how the disease affects young people. (Just in case you were wondering, the balance of the appearance fee will be going to the Lance Armstrong Foundation and directly to the fight against cancer.)

Armstrong said in a CN interview that NONE of his appearance fee would go the foundation.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Eva Maria said:
Armstrong said in a CN interview that NONE of his appearance fee would go the foundation.

Why would he, he has blond bimbos who look like his mother to impress.
 
Apr 24, 2009
206
0
0
Visit site
Mellow Velo said:
You make him sound like Mother Teresa.:eek:
A general question:
If he's pocketing money that any donator may believe is destined for charity, is that not fraud?





That Giro roads, I agree, are relatively obscure, to many followers of "the man".

There are few things in life more tedious than a purity troll.