Awareness yes, but of what?

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
knewcleardaze said:
Is there a LanceAwarenessdotcom foundation?
Then I could learn about the flooding in Australia,cancer,and the awareness of being aware of all things to be aware of.
The .com is available. Don't use the Demand Media registrar, though. You wouldn't want to reinforce the oversight directly.

Dave.
 
ergmonkey said:
Since 1999, Lance Armstrong has helped to "raise my awareness" (as an American and now competitive cyclist) of all of the following:

-the history of the Tour de France and previous winners
-the way a mega-charity operates
-the way to manage a human being as a brand
-the extent to which Americans are prone to hero worship
-the extent of doping and corruption in cycling

Lance Armstrong has not done much to "raise my awareness" of cancer--but then again, my father is a cancer surgeon, so I guess I've been hearing about the disease quite a lot since well before I started watching Lance and the Tour.
I believe the original intentions of the foundation were honourable. At the time testicular cancer would get muffled laughter when ever mentioned. Men would never check "down there". For those reasons alone I think Armstrong was on to something in terms of raising awareness for the disease.

But what the fark happened? I'm not sure at what point he crossed the line and lost all sense and meaning of his life and to turn the foundation from a nice, neat and small organisation filled with people who genuinely wanted to do good into this awful sorry excuse for health and living profit website.

If the charity never existed and Livestrong was a profit entity all of its own it would have bombed years ago. It needs the charity to survive thus decisions for the charity are based on what’s best for Livestrong.com. This will only get worse once Demand lists. The shareholders can by extension make decisions for the charity.

A truly sorry state of affairs.
 
Aug 11, 2009
729
0
0
thehog said:
I believe the original intentions of the foundation were honourable....I'm not sure at what point he crossed the line and lost all sense and meaning of his life and to turn the foundation from a nice, neat and small organisation filled with people who genuinely wanted to do good into this awful sorry excuse for health and living profit website.
I agree. I'd point out, too, that the Foundation was started before Lance was a Tour winner and sports miracle story. I think the turn happened right around the time that Lance became bankable on a massive scale and the good name and intentions of the Foundation could help the gold rush along. I also think the shift away from core ideals was gradual. It seemed to become more and more about Lance as Lance, Inc. came to better and better understand how to market Lance as a brand. Then, of course, came the need to use the Foundation as a shield to deflect or distract from doping allegations...
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
ergmonkey said:
I agree. I'd point out, too, that the Foundation was started before Lance was a Tour winner and sports miracle story. I think the turn happened right around the time that Lance became bankable on a massive scale and the good name and intentions of the Foundation could help the gold rush along. I also think the shift away from core ideals was gradual. It seemed to become more and more about Lance as Lance, Inc. came to better and better understand how to market Lance as a brand. Then, of course, came the need to use the Foundation as a shield to deflect or distract from doping allegations...
i think when he saw how gold rolled him he got greedy pure and simple. the use of LAF to try and deflect the doping was always gonna happen. natural reaction to scream "but what about the good i've done" in LA's case it dont add up too much
 
Jul 19, 2010
347
0
0
ergmonkey said:
I agree. I'd point out, too, that the Foundation was started before Lance was a Tour winner and sports miracle story. I think the turn happened right around the time that Lance became bankable on a massive scale and the good name and intentions of the Foundation could help the gold rush along. I also think the shift away from core ideals was gradual. It seemed to become more and more about Lance as Lance, Inc. came to better and better understand how to market Lance as a brand. Then, of course, came the need to use the Foundation as a shield to deflect or distract from doping allegations...
A cynic might say that the need for money to develop good treatments was greater before their effectiveness been proven in the Tour.
 

jimmypop

BANNED
Jul 16, 2010
376
1
0
thehog said:
I believe the original intentions of the foundation were honourable. At the time testicular cancer would get muffled laughter when ever mentioned. Men would never check "down there". For those reasons alone I think Armstrong was on to something in terms of raising awareness for the disease.
I think you'll find that's not the case; just ask "College". A lot of money men and snake-oil salesman had hitched their carriages to the Armstrong horse by 1996; they needed a way to pull a return even if he didn't come back to race again.
 
Aug 11, 2009
729
0
0
Paco_P said:
A cynic might say that the need for money to develop good treatments was greater before their effectiveness been proven in the Tour.
Maybe. Who knows how people tend to view these things?

Personally, I don't see any link between cancer treatment and Tour performance--just a hope that the patient isn't so ravaged by the medicine that he/she can one day return to full, normal training.

The typical cancer treatment is mostly poison. In fact, the original course of treatment which Lance rejected would have wrecked his lungs and made a comeback impossible. Even with the alternative (lower-percentage recovery odds) treatment that Lance chose for himself, I certainly hope no one looks at Lance's comeback and then thinks that his cancer treatment was anything but savage.

If the Lance comeback gives hope to people undergoing chemo rounds, losing their hair, vomiting frequently, and watching their muscles atrophy daily--hope that they can return to normal--then that's awesome (no sarcasm here). But, I hope other people don't think the need for improved treatment options is any less after seeing Lance bounce back.
 
May 5, 2009
696
1
0
The chart posted by Race Radio speaks volumes. No more words necessary.

It is evidence together with the demand IPO about what it's really about. It's not about the bike. It's not about helping. It's not about cancer. It's about profiteering. It's about deceiving and distracting from the real Lance. It's about making big bucks, it's just LANCE AWARENE$$

 
Sep 16, 2010
226
0
0
My brother had a mysterious disease in 1970, he had his arm amputated that year, when he was in the 8th grade. No one knew what it was. But in 1999 we realized it must have been that cancer thing Lance had. Thanks Lance. I'm sure without your efforts my brother would still be wondering what happened.
 
MD said:
My brother had a mysterious disease in 1970, he had his arm amputated that year, when he was in the 8th grade. No one knew what it was. But in 1999 we realized it must have been that cancer thing Lance had. Thanks Lance. I'm sure without your efforts my brother would still be wondering what happened.
Likewise, my brother had melanoma. This puzzled everyone for years.

Fortunately, with great sighs of relief, now we know it wasn't the bike.

Dave.
 
Apr 28, 2009
493
0
0
MacRoadie said:
Much debate exists as to what the true meaning of "Raising Awareness" is. As I see it, there are several schools of thought so I thought it might be interesting to see how people see "raising awareness"
um, good question. I assumed that by raising awareness, the goal was to show that a person could survive cancer, and that many medical avenues were available to help do that, and then thrive after the cancer was 'beaten'.

All in all, a very valid goal. Now do I think that LAF does that now? nope.
 
Jul 7, 2009
583
0
0
this_is_edie said:
um, good question. I assumed that by raising awareness, the goal was to show that a person could survive cancer, and that many medical avenues were available to help do that, and then thrive after the cancer was 'beaten'.

All in all, a very valid goal. Now do I think that LAF does that now? nope.
Provided one has health care coverage and the dough.
 
Nov 24, 2010
263
1
0
Race Radio said:
Yes, Blue is the .com.

The Foundation spent $4,000,000 on advertising, most of it very simple with a picture of Armstrong and Livestrong.

It is clear the the main benefiter of this advertising is the for profit website.

You mean 4 million bucks evaporated. Hells bells, can I say smoke and mirrors

I am certainly in a state of "awareness" now

no cheers
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts