• 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 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 14, 2009
151
0
0
Visit site
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.
 
Apr 10, 2009
594
0
0
Visit site
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. :D

Sounds good to me, econ truce....:)
 
May 26, 2009
502
0
0
Visit site
Eva Maria said:
Armstrong said in a CN interview that NONE of his appearance fee would go the foundation.

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.
 

Eva Maria

BANNED
May 24, 2009
387
0
0
Visit site
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.

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.
 
Apr 8, 2009
272
0
0
Visit site
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.
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?

I think some people are so blinkered in their dislike for LA that they can't see the wood for the tree's.
 
Mar 10, 2009
504
0
0
Visit site
TRDean said:
I think he doped, I think he is an alpha jerk, but I can overlook that if there is more cancer awareness.

If only Pete Rose could have gone on an anti-gambling crusade, the baseball world would be purer today, and the Hall of Fame richer for his presence.
 
Jun 4, 2009
7
0
0
Visit site
SpeedWay said:
These two monkeys be H A T E R S. Nothing else really matters.

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.
 
Mar 10, 2009
504
0
0
Visit site
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.

Add to that: ALL journalists. Truth to power.
 
May 26, 2009
502
0
0
Visit site
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.

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?
 
Apr 24, 2009
60
0
0
Visit site
Think Before You Leap.

Before you criticise the book you should read what they say first and look at the eveidence before automatically dimissing it.

I cetainly don't like Armstrong but I think he is only part of the problem. Corruption in sport is rife. That is why people like Armstrong flourish in the world of sport. When he gave the UCI a 'donation' of $500 000 would he have got away with something like that if he was already a politician or public official?

At his Global Initiative Launch last year the CEO of Coca-Cola was there. Read about Coca-Cola's wondeful record on workers rights in Central and South America where there have denied having any links with death squads.

I certainly think opponents and supporters alike are falling into the cult of personality but to say that he is just this 'eveyday Joe' are kidding themselves.
 
Thing is, I wouldn't have an issue with him pocketing vast appearance fees, or earning twice the going rate to Bill Clinton, for public speaking, if he'd just said that from the outset.
After all, he rode as a pro, to make money and now rides without an apparent team wage.
That's what defines a pro rider, from an amateur one.

However, the reasons suggested by Walsh and Ballester, have never been mentioned. We have had LAF, cancer awareness, charitable donations, but never the most obvious, buck on the side.

It's lying by omission. Half truths are not the truth.

Still, it's a fine quality for a fledgling politician.
 
Mar 18, 2009
745
0
0
Visit site
Mellow Velo said:
It's lying by omission. Half truths are not the truth.

Still, it's a fine quality for a fledgling politician.

Sad but true...most politicians learn this early IMHO...it's sad because I really belive some neo-politicians (or are the called freshmen in the US?) really do start out idealistic, wanting to do good by the people, etc.

I posted the articles earlier because I could find nothing where LA specifically states all appearance fees were going to Livestrong...only retractions to the effect of "contrary to what was previously reported, Armstrong is keeping the appearance fees..."

He did, according to one article, donate USD 100 000 to one local charity in Australia...which I thought was nice. That's a fair chunk of money.

I must admit, however, that I felt/still feel misled by his many statements of "I'm doing this for free", when in fact, he meant he's not taking a salary from the team.

I don't fault him for his appearance fees, many a celeb's income is based on them, but I do feel that making a living from appearance fees (as he has for the past 4 yrs or so), and "riding for free" are different.

I will read the book though.
 
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.

Don't rise to the bait. Notice the time they post at. It's a timezone thing. To misquote Travis Bickle, "all the ments come out at night"...
 

Eva Maria

BANNED
May 24, 2009
387
0
0
Visit site
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?

You failed in your assignment.

Please tell us what W&B have written that is incorrect? You accuse biases but are unable to give one example that proves your point. Read their books and tell us what in them is biased and provided some proof to back up your clams

I appears you did not read the link I provided. The link you reference that claimed "the balance of the appearance fee will be going to the Lance Armstrong Foundation" came from South Australian Premier Mike Rann's media department. Armstrong himself said that this statement was wrong and he was keeping the money for himself
 
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.

Well that depends on what you call scandalous. Because a pre and post doped cancer survivor who also won the Tour 7 times, that has treated fellow collegues with a vendeta nastyness who have dared to try and break the omerta which covers the major doping problem in the sport (or even left his team as disloyal traitors) and who has now coopted the cancer community to further his future political aspirations, cover his doped career while he continues to lie about it and, to top it all off, increase his already buldeging wallet is pure obscenity. Other than scandalous!

Meanwhile a guy like Simeoni, who has really been sincere, has been ostracized by his profession. Now that's obscene. The hypocracy in it is beyond scandalous...
 

whiteboytrash

BANNED
Mar 17, 2009
525
0
0
Visit site
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/
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
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/

Sometimes you **** me off, this is not one of those times.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,442
0
0
Visit site
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`.

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 power to him.
 

whiteboytrash

BANNED
Mar 17, 2009
525
0
0
Visit site
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.

One change :p