Interesting piece on Livestrong

Page 57 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Aug 7, 2010
1,247
0
0
H2OUUP2 said:
Um......No. Good try though.

I really don't see any back room deals going on here. Nike is already in contract with Hockey Canada(HC). Nike is in contracts with Livestrong. Maybe Nike persuaded HC to do this with a little extra, but I really don't see anything dodgy going on here.

I think this is just a very poor decision on Hockey Canadas part. Those sorts of things do happen.
Possible: Hockey Canada and Nike cut a deal in advance of the 5hitstorm. Then after the shocking reveal, Hockey Canada asks Nike nicely if its okay to not wear Livestrong colors. Nike replies nicely, saying a deal is a deal, we are still in the Livestrong business, and we have tons of merchandise in the retail pipeline. Nike then asks ...'how Hockey Canada is enjoying the money they sent...'. Hockey Canada says the really enjoy Nike's money.
 
H2OUUP2 said:
Um......No. Good try though.

I really don't see any back room deals going on here. Nike is already in contract with Hockey Canada(HC). Nike is in contracts with Livestrong. Maybe Nike persuaded HC to do this with a little extra, but I really don't see anything dodgy going on here.

I think this is just a very poor decision on Hockey Canadas part. Those sorts of things do happen.
I wasn't suggesting anything untoward.

I was merely pointing out that your argument that Bob is a 'good guy' doesn't hold much water.

Unfortunately we have seen too much of that. And, misrepresentation is the focus of the clinic. So here it is fair game to point out the lack of substance in your support.

How good is your perception of Bob, and how are we supposed to rely on that?

We cannot.

All we know is that we have a really poorly thought through endorsement. We don't know why. And, we don't know why that someone with integrity, as you are suggesting of Bob, wouldn't fix it upon finding themselves in the news for such a bad decision.

Why would a good guy continue to defend a bad decision? To perpetuate bad press?

Dave.
 
Jul 4, 2011
248
0
0
Fortyninefourteen said:
Possible: Hockey Canada and Nike cut a deal in advance of the 5hitstorm. Then after the shocking reveal, Hockey Canada asks Nike nicely if its okay to not wear Livestrong colors. Nike replies nicely, saying a deal is a deal, we are still in the Livestrong business, and we have tons of merchandise in the retail pipeline. Nike then asks ...'how Hockey Canada is enjoying the money they sent...'. Hockey Canada says the really enjoy Nike's money.
That is much more possible then Hockey Canada, or someone in Hockey Canada, taking a bribe.

People need to realize sometimes things are just as they seem. Not some long played out scam. I know It's hard when Livestrong is involved. I even have a bad taste in my mouth about this deal. But I really don't see anything "dodgy" happening here.

It's just a really bad decision at a really bad time.
 
H2OUUP2 said:
That is much more possible then Hockey Canada, or someone in Hockey Canada, taking a bribe.

People need to realize sometimes things are just as they seem. Not some long played out scam. I know It's hard when Livestrong is involved. I even have a bad taste in my mouth about this deal. But I really don't see anything "dodgy" happening here.

It's just a really bad decision at a really bad time.
Agreed.

Now, we have two bad decisions. They have not retracted when the obvious has been pointed out and created general concern.

Strike three next?

Dave.
 
Jul 4, 2011
248
0
0
D-Queued said:
I wasn't suggesting anything untoward.

I was merely pointing out that your argument that Bob is a 'good guy' doesn't hold much water.

Unfortunately we have seen too much of that. And, misrepresentation is the focus of the clinic. So here it is fair game to point out the lack of substance in your support.

How good is your perception of Bob, and how are we supposed to rely on that?
Your argument he is a "bad guy" holds less water then my argument though.

Find any conspiracy theory, any bad decision, any shady "dealings" coming from HC or Bob. There are none. Which would lead me to believe that this deal isn't anything but a stupid decision.

Dave, I think you are being way to cynical here. I get the whole clinic "attitude". But this is pushing it.
 
H2OUUP2 said:
Your argument he is a "bad guy" holds less water then my argument though.

Find any conspiracy theory, any bad decision, any shady "dealings" coming from HC or Bob. There are none. Which would lead me to believe that this deal isn't anything but a stupid decision.

Dave, I think you are being way to cynical here. I get the whole clinic "attitude". But this is pushing it.
This is not pushing it.

Because, whether we discuss it or not, there will be a certain number of people that will also be thinking this when an obviously illogical deal is consummated, one that obviously involves sponsorship.

I don't like discussing it either. But, I am not going to deny it.

Moral: If you make a bad decision, fix it as soon as you can.

Dave.
 
Jul 4, 2011
248
0
0
D-Queued said:
This is not pushing it.

Because, whether we discuss it or not, there will be a certain number of people that will also be thinking this when an obviously illogical deal is consummated, one that obviously involves sponsorship.

I don't like discussing it either. But, I am not going to deny it.

Moral: If you make a bad decision, fix it as soon as you can.

Dave.
I'm not denying anything. I'm simply taking into account Hockey Canada's history as an organization, and basing my opinion off that.

As for not being able to fix the bad decision. Their may be contract issues. They do have contractual agreements with Nike already. Neither you are me know what those are.
Or, maybe like Nike, they also believe Livestrong does some good? So they believed this was a good idea and actually don't think it was a bad decision in the first place, and now have signed the contract and are stuck with it?

This to me is more plausible then what you are suggesting.
 
H2OUUP2 said:
I'm not denying anything. I'm simply taking into account Hockey Canada's history as an organization, and basing my opinion off that.

As for not being able to fix the bad decision. Their may be contract issues. They do have contractual agreements with Nike already. Neither you are me know what those are.
Or, maybe like Nike, they also believe Livestrong does some good? So they believed this was a good idea and actually don't think it was a bad decision in the first place, and now have signed the contract and are stuck with it?

This to me is more plausible then what you are suggesting.
This is why these cross-marketing schemes to exploit and commercialise cancer are so insidious. There is always someone to say "but it's a cancer charity, it does some good". Even when the principal beneficiaries are the company that is hawking its overpriced merchandise, a sports figure enriching himself through excessive appearance/speaking fees and often overpaid managers of the “charity”. The actual cause of cancer is a distant 4th or 5th in the hierarchy and even then the funds are often used in a non-effective manner.

Long-time partnership with Nike or not, Hockey Canada should have been aware of the real nature of Livestrong as this information has been out there for many months, even years. The Kansas City stadium partnership went sour in January, but there are many other incidents that Hockey Canada should have known about if they had exercised a minimum of due diligence.

That Hockey Canada is associated with Nike is bad enough, but at least in that relationship the motives are relatively transparent - an exchange of funding for the opportunity to market the Nike brand. Involving Livestrong is simply the exploitation of human generosity, hope and trust, not to mention transforming a national symbol into a marketing tool. This is a major fail for Hockey Canada, and I would imagine that despite their upbeat press releases they aren’t too comfortable with the fallout.
 
Jul 4, 2011
248
0
0
frenchfry said:
This is why these cross-marketing schemes to exploit and commercialise cancer are so insidious. There is always someone to say "but it's a cancer charity, it does some good". Even when the principal beneficiaries are the company that is hawking its overpriced merchandise, a sports figure enriching himself through excessive appearance/speaking fees and often overpaid managers of the “charity”. The actual cause of cancer is a distant 4th or 5th in the hierarchy and even then the funds are often used in a non-effective manner.

Long-time partnership with Nike or not, Hockey Canada should have been aware of the real nature of Livestrong as this information has been out there for many months, even years. The Kansas City stadium partnership went sour in January, but there are many other incidents that Hockey Canada should have known about if they had exercised a minimum of due diligence.

That Hockey Canada is associated with Nike is bad enough, but at least in that relationship the motives are relatively transparent - an exchange of funding for the opportunity to market the Nike brand. Involving Livestrong is simply the exploitation of human generosity, hope and trust, not to mention transforming a national symbol into a marketing tool. This is a major fail for Hockey Canada, and I would imagine that despite their upbeat press releases they aren’t too comfortable with the fallout.
I completely agree. Again though. All I see is a really stupid decision, at a really stupid time, by an historically well ran organization.
I think having contractual agreements with Nike, as well as with a Livestrong "ambassador" being on the team, It has guided them toward this decision and it's coming up to bite them in the rear.
 
H2OUUP2 said:
I completely agree. Again though. All I see is a really stupid decision, at a really stupid time, by an historically well ran organization.
I think having contractual agreements with Nike, as well as with a Livestrong "ambassador" being on the team, It has guided them toward this decision and it's coming up to bite them in the rear.
Group. Think. Leads. To. Fiascos. Like. The. Bay. Of. Pigs.

Dave.
 
Jul 4, 2011
248
0
0
D-Queued said:
Group. Think. Leads. To. Fiascos. Like. The. Bay. Of. Pigs.

Dave.
LOL. I don't know where you live, Dave. But in Canada, this is about as big of a fiasco as Marco Rubio taking a sip of water during his speech.
 
Jul 4, 2011
248
0
0
D-Queued said:
I know enough about Canada to know exactly where your Avatar's grandmother used to live.

Dave.
I know this is waaaaaay off topic. But You know developers are now eying that piece of land. :(
The man who bought it restored the original building, and I believe he won't sell unless the building is kept, or something is done to remember who once lived there.

Good for him. I wish him luck.
 
H2OUUP2 said:
I know this is waaaaaay off topic. But You know developers are now eying that piece of land. :(
The man who bought it restored the original building, and I believe he won't sell unless the building is kept, or something is done to remember who once lived there.

Good for him. I wish him luck.
I know.

(Edit to add: I helped preserve it in the first place...)

Dave.
 
Hockey Canada Makes a Huge Mistake

D-Queued said:
Canada's National Women's Hockey Team (the national sport, no less) has abandoned its national colors and sold out to the biggest sports fraud ever:

http://blog.livestrong.org/2013/02/27/nike-livestrong-team-canada-world-womens-hockey-championship-jersey/

Only in Canada, eh?

Dave.
I am at a total loss as to the bonehead decision by Hockey Canada. While Livestrong.org, is a legitimate charity and gives good advice to cancer victims, it is inextricably tied to LA, a sociopathic fraudster, who used the chartity to promote his faux celebrity and scam personal income.

When I go to Sportcheck I am embarassed for them to continue to tout Livestrong wear, given the extent of the reprehensible conduct of Armstrong.

I am particularly incensed Hockey Canada would chose to promote Armstrong's Foundation in the place and stead of the Terry Fox Foundation. I recognize that unlike Livestrong, the Fox Foundation does not support commercial ventures such as Hockey Canada. It is for that very reason it maintains its credibility

Terry exmplified all that was a good in an athlete - focus, determination, never giving up, sacrifice, unselfishness, respect. He was stubborn and could be prickly but that was only in the furhter cause of raising money for cancer research. Lance Armstring is the antithesis.

I suspect when most Canadians figure it out, they will respond not unlike me. Thanks to D-Queued for revealing this tawdry decision by Hockey Canada.
 
RobbieCanuck said:
...

I am particularly incensed Hockey Canada would chose to promote Armstrong's Foundation in the place and stead of the Terry Fox Foundation. I recognize that unlike Livestrong, the Fox Foundation does not support commercial ventures such as Hockey Canada. It is for that very reason it maintains its credibility
...
This is why the Terry Fox foundation has no interest for Hockey Canada. Livestrong is essentially a marketing vehicule (both .org and .com) and looks mainly to cross marketing schemes for financing. There is a residue of the money obtained through merchandise sales and event organising that goes to the core cause (cancer "awareness" in the case of Livestrong) but it requires partners who have a financial interest in working with them. From what I see, the Terry Fox foundation is structured more like how "charities" used to be, where the main objective is raising funds directly for research to cure a disease. They have no interest for companies/sports teams/celebrity athletes who are looking to skim funds that are raised to finance their bottom line or their operations in the case of Hockey Canada.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
2
0
frenchfry said:
This is why the Terry Fox foundation has no interest for Hockey Canada. Livestrong is essentially a marketing vehicule (both .org and .com) and looks mainly to cross marketing schemes for financing. There is a residue of the money obtained through merchandise sales and event organising that goes to the core cause (cancer "awareness" in the case of Livestrong) but it requires partners who have a financial interest in working with them. From what I see, the Terry Fox foundation is structured more like how "charities" used to be, where the main objective is raising funds directly for research to cure a disease. They have no interest for companies/sports teams/celebrity athletes who are looking to skim funds that are raised to finance their bottom line or their operations in the case of Hockey Canada.
Pretty much a fair assessment of the differences between Livestrong and the Terry Fox Foundation.

Terry Fox Foundation = legit above the board charity.

Livestong = Not even close to a real charity.
 
frenchfry said:
This is why the Terry Fox foundation has no interest for Hockey Canada. Livestrong is essentially a marketing vehicule (both .org and .com) and looks mainly to cross marketing schemes for financing. There is a residue of the money obtained through merchandise sales and event organising that goes to the core cause (cancer "awareness" in the case of Livestrong) but it requires partners who have a financial interest in working with them. From what I see, the Terry Fox foundation is structured more like how "charities" used to be, where the main objective is raising funds directly for research to cure a disease. They have no interest for companies/sports teams/celebrity athletes who are looking to skim funds that are raised to finance their bottom line or their operations in the case of Hockey Canada.[/QUOTE

Un tres bon observation!
 
RobbieCanuck said:
I am at a total loss as to the bonehead decision by Hockey Canada. While Livestrong.org, is a legitimate charity and gives good advice to cancer victims, it is inextricably tied to LA, a sociopathic fraudster, who used the chartity to promote his faux celebrity and scam personal income.

When I go to Sportcheck I am embarassed for them to continue to tout Livestrong wear, given the extent of the reprehensible conduct of Armstrong.

I am particularly incensed Hockey Canada would chose to promote Armstrong's Foundation in the place and stead of the Terry Fox Foundation. I recognize that unlike Livestrong, the Fox Foundation does not support commercial ventures such as Hockey Canada. It is for that very reason it maintains its credibility

Terry exmplified all that was a good in an athlete - focus, determination, never giving up, sacrifice, unselfishness, respect. He was stubborn and could be prickly but that was only in the furhter cause of raising money for cancer research. Lance Armstring is the antithesis.

I suspect when most Canadians figure it out, they will respond not unlike me. Thanks to D-Queued for revealing this tawdry decision by Hockey Canada.
Thanks Robbie.

We need to keep up the pressure.

Everyone I have spoken to about this is appalled and astounded. Other than Hockey Canada, of course.

Dave.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
http://blogs.wsj.com/corporate-intelligence/2013/03/11/business-at-the-crossroads-of-lance-armstrong-and-gun-laws/

, people had very negative reaction to the Livestrong brand unfortunately. Even though with Lance’s, he is no longer with the foundation, the foundation does great work, the customers had a very negative reaction to the Livestrong brand.

And the business with the Livestrong treadmills and ellipticals, which as I said were over 50% of our business, just stopped
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Fortyninefourteen said:
I was in a Canadian Tire last week buying some car stuff, and came across w whole line of pallets with Livestrong treadmills shrink wrapped and labelled for return to their DC.....
I dont know why :D but i get a nice warm feeling reading this......:p
 
Jan 29, 2010
502
0
0
Benotti69 said:
I dont know why :D but i get a nice warm feeling reading this......:p
I don't know. Every time I go into Sport Chek lately (a major Canadian sports chain store) I still see livestrong everywhere, and a bowl of yellow wristbands for sale at the counter.

I haven't wanted to annoy the checkout staff enough to warrant asking if the bracelets are still moving, but they're there in every store I've been in (3 in the past 3 months).
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY