A
Anonymous
Guest
Azdak6 said:There are few things in life more tedious than a purity troll.
You are, so you got that goin' for ya'.
The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Azdak6 said:There are few things in life more tedious than a purity troll.
BikeCentric said: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.![]()
Eva Maria said:Armstrong said in a CN interview that NONE of his appearance fee would go the foundation.
RdBiker said:Please provide a link for that. We now have a piece of news stating that Armstrong IS giving money to charity so he have to have a link to prove otherwise.
I really don't like to judge people before I know the facts. You have to admit that B&W are a little biased so I'd take anything they write/say with a grain of salt.
So LA is the only 'celeb' who has ever taken any appearance money and all the others pay their own way. C'mon which planet are you from?nobody said:I have never seen a football player like Zidane, Beckham, ... taking fees to participate at a meeting to promote the fight against illness.
Some of them don't accept to have their travel paid! Clearly a different set of ethics.
Are you talking about Mellow Velo? You are really off here. Need to have some respect in this Forum.Azdak6 said:There are few things in life more tedious than a purity troll.
TRDean said:I think he doped, I think he is an alpha jerk, but I can overlook that if there is more cancer awareness.
SpeedWay said:These two monkeys be H A T E R S. Nothing else really matters.
stevepedo said:What's wrong with questioning motives, when these motives are apparently there, but not declared? Sports journalists need to grow some balls and be journalists not simply echos of the peoples heros.
Eva Maria said:From cyclingnews
http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/200...9/lance_armstrong_tdu_prerace_pressconf_jan09
Armstrong also dismissed reports that the appearance fee he has been paid to contest Tour Down Under will go to the charity. Earlier in the week South Australian Premier Mike Rann's media department told Cyclingnews that any monies which may have been paid to Armstrong will go to the Livestrong charity.
"That's not true," he said.
Now your turn, you say B&W are biased. What is your evidence? Have you read their books? So far their books have withstood all of Armstrong's various legal actions. If it wasn't true they could not print it.
Mellow Velo said:It's lying by omission. Half truths are not the truth.
Still, it's a fine quality for a fledgling politician.
stevepedo said:Hm, read from "Lance to Landis" by perchance? Walsh, unlike the cartoon demolishing of his writings by lazy journalisys who simply echo Lance propaganda, is not a hater at all. In fact he seems somewhat sympathetic to human vulnerability and failings. However he cannot abide ignorance, and that is exactly what the system relies on, people ignoring the judgments of their own intelligence in favour of what they are told by officials.
What's wrong with questioning motives, when these motives are apparently there, but not declared? Sports journalists need to grow some balls and be journalists not simply echos of the peoples heros.
RdBiker said:They are biased since they get financial profit (money) by writing these books. It is in their interest to write bad things about Armstrong so I suspect everything they write until I get proof that their stories are true. I automatically don't take their books as facts. The same applies everywhere. If a bank lady tells me to invest in a certain fund then I suspect it since the bank's main function is to get as much profit from my investment as they can. When I read from an (independent) article that the said fund is a good investment then I believe it.
Do you say that by writing something in a book and printing it makes it automatically true? What about Armstrong's own books? Are they 100% true? I'm not saying I don't believe you when you tell me that Armstrong hasn't paid a penny to the charity I just wanted to see proof about it. We had a piece of news that stated Armstrong donated $100,000 to a cancer centre and that said "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" so I think proof was needed to discredit that. Now we have two different stories against each other. Which one to believe?
yetanothergreenworld said:I generally admire the muckraking of Walsh, but what's the big story here? That Armstrong is a businessman? That he wants to make money and attract publicity? That he might have political aspirations? None of this is surprising or scandalous.
whiteboytrash said:I have posted this before but think worthy of a reprint considering the arguments presented. Even if some of the money went to LAF it would only be there to fund a jetset life style:
The truth of the "foundation":
Firstly, despite the claims of some, the LAF does not make any significant contribution to the field of cancer research. Of the 270 million US dollars the LAF has raised, just 19.1 million has gone to cancer research. This is a mere drop in the ocean of the billion dollar world of cancer research.
Secondly the LAF does not directly save lives by paying for cancer treatment. In fact, the LAF says that it`s primary aim is to: `help you understand what to expect, teach you what questions to ask and give you one-on-one support along the way. We help you learn about your treatment options`.
Many would argue that Armstrong could help cancer sufferers far more by persuading his corporate and Republican buddies to support the provision of universal health care in the USA.
Thirdly, the LAF is not on the list of charities approved by charity watchdog organisations, largely because it spends so much of what it receives on promoting the LAF. Of the 270 million dollars it has raised, a whopping 45% has gone on promoting the LAF. (And so, of course, Lance Armstrong). See
http://www.charitywatch.org/articles/cancer.html
Figures such as those above must cause one to wonder whether the true purpose of the LAF is to provide Armstrong with a PR shield which acts to deflect criticism as to how he achieved his Tour `wins`. Stephanie McIlvain (his former personal liaison with Oakley) certainly seems to believe this, as she made clear in that talk she had with Greg Lemond. (The one where she also admits that she heard Armstrong admit to doping). See:
http://j.b5z.net/i/u/2132106/m/gregstef.mp3
Fourthly, foundations are not always created for genuinely philanthropic reasons. The sports philanthropy project says the following of foundations created in the names of sports stars:
`Foundations... serve two immediate purposes: They can provide a hefty and long-term tax deduction on windfall signing bonuses and salaries. And they can supply positive public relations, if they flourish.
...On its own Web site, the National Heritage Foundation lists several reasons why agents should encourage their clients to start foundations. For one thing, agents may continue to be paid from the foundation after the athletes' retirement. Also listed: Community prestige, lower taxable income and the Pester Factor.
"Athletes are besieged with requests for funds by almost everyone they see," the site offers. "They would be able to say, 'All these matters are handled by my foundation.'"
On the 990 tax forms, charity for the wrong reason still counts as a write-off.`
http://www.sportsphilanthropyprojec...ails.php?id=426
Of course, Armstrong is not alone in his `good work`. Others who operate similar PR scams, sorry, who are involved in similar work for good causes, include Floyd Landis and Tyler Hamilton...
http://www.floydlandisfoundation.org/
http://www.tylerhamilton.com/
whiteboytrash said:Secondly the LAF does not directly save lives by paying for cancer treatment. In fact, the LAF says that it`s primary aim is to: `help you understand what to expect, teach you what questions to ask and give you one-on-one support along the way. We help you learn about your treatment options`.
elapid said:I agree with your post, but don't underestimate this aim of the LAF. People with cancer are often told what to do by their oncologists rather than being given information about their disease and different treatment options, including trials. These people often accept their oncologist's recommendations because they're the expert. However, the ability to act as your own advocate, educate yourself about the disease and the different treatment options, and be involved in decisions regarding your treatment is very empowering. It is unlikely that Lance would be alive if he didn't act as his own advocate and chase down the best people in the field. If he gives other people this opportunity, then all the money to him.