Interesting piece on Livestrong

[blackcat]

Nike is surely becoming the touch of death for sponsored athletes?

Pistorous
Armstrong
Woods

great list to stick your name under eh?

four horsemen of the apocalypse

4th man is Oscar's prosthetics

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Chef de l'exploitation

Cooking up some exploitation. How apt.

 

[peterst6906]

Here is the response that was received:

Dear ,

A lot of vomit....

Scott

Scott Smith
Chief Operating Officer
Chef de l'exploitation
Hockey Canada


Dave.

What he wanted to say was 'Dave, you just love cancer'.

But he really couldn't say that, could he.

 

[huntelk]

I wrote to 10 or so of the most senior people I could find in Hockey Canada and received the exact same response.
Disgusting.

Interestingly, many people on their Facebook page are upset as well. I thought I was in the minority. Happy to see I am not!

Here is the response that was received:

Dear ,

Thanks for taking the time to send us this e-mail.

Nike has been a great partner and supporter of Hockey Canada for nearly 20 years. In this role, Nike has supported all levels of hockey, including grassroots and female hockey.

With the introduction of a third jersey that Canada’s National Women’s Team will wear for its opening game at the 2013 IIHF Ice Hockey Women’s World Championship, Hockey Canada is proud to support Nike and the Livestrong Foundation. The Foundation assists thousands of victims of cancer across Canada and around the world. Nike has helped to raise over $100 million for the Foundation, generating almost $500 million to battle cancer since its inception in 1997. The Foundation’s Cancer Transitions program is available throughout Canada, while Livestrong also operates programs for people living with cancer at two locations in Montreal, and hopes to expand its resources in Canada.

Hockey Canada feels strongly that the Livestrong Foundation is a cause worth supporting, regardless of any past association with any individuals. In the case of Lance Armstrong, Nike has assured us that he is no longer a Nike athlete, and is no longer on the board or involved with Livestrong in any way.

But the Foundation’s battle with cancer will continue, and Hockey Canada is proud to be supporting it.

Scott

Scott Smith
Chief Operating Officer
Chef de l'exploitation
Hockey Canada


Dave.

 

[D-Queued]

I wrote to 10 or so of the most senior people I could find in Hockey Canada and received the exact same response.
Disgusting.

Interestingly, many people on their Facebook page are upset as well. I thought I was in the minority. Happy to see I am not!

It may be a canned response, but what the heck.

So, of course, I responded to the response:

Hi Scott,

Thank you very much for your thoughtful reply.

There are two issues here. One is with respect to the official jersey of a Canadian National Team at a World Championship. The other is the confused relationships with the use of the Livestrong brand.

On the former, the official jersey, Hockey Canada is empowered to support many causes. Hockey Canada can readily perform at charitable events or other venues.

At a World Championship, however, Hockey Canada’s mission is very clear. You are not participating in a charitable event. You are representing our country. This is not a first and foremost scenario, but an absolute one. And, this is consistent with fundamental Olympic values and mandate.

As I am sure you are aware, the Olympics have a very stringent policy regarding the use of advertising on team uniforms. That Livestrong is a not-for-profit is not an escape clause.

In the case of Hockey Canada ahead of all other sports, you are empowered with our Nation’s pride. NHL professionals put aside their team and other affiliations to play for the Maple Leaf.

It wasn’t that long ago that athletes at the Olympics were expelled from the games for supporting human rights during the medal ceremony. Whether you or I, or even the Canadian Olympic Team, agree with that action is not as relevant as the fundamental principles of the Olympic spirit. Olympic athletes represent their country, not their personal causes.

On the latter point, the confused relationships with the Livestrong brand, I cannot argue with the statement you have quoted from Nike. That is a narrow view, however, that avoids the much broader and highly visible context.

In this case, I respectfully direct you to the Livestrong.com website. Please note the following: “Copyright © 2013 Demand Media, Inc. … The LIVESTRONG Foundation and LIVESTRONG.COM do not endorse any of the products or services that are advertised on the web site.”

Demand Media has a perpetual license to Livestrong.com. Livestrong.com is a separate, for-profit initiative that is not controlled by the Livestrong Foundation. As such, there is a direct conflict of interest with the Livestrong name.

Endorsement by Hockey Canada of Livestrong is irrefutably an advertisement for an unrelated for-profit web site.

While I sincerely respect your commitment, and wish our Hockey Team the best of luck, I would ask you to give serious thought to reconsidering your decision.



Dave.

 

[frenchfry]

I received the exact same reply, word for word, even though I am sure our initial letters were not the same.

Beyond my disgust with Livestrong, I am firmly against the commercialisation of cancer.

Hockey Canada is officially a Nike corporate wh0re.

Here was my response to Hockey Canada:

Dear Scott,

Thank you for your quick reply, though to be honest it appears to have been written by the Nike marketing department.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this. Too bad, as Livestrong is most assuredly not the upstanding organisation that is portrayed in your press release. This is an organisation that has used its doners funds to lobby US government officials to attempt to destroy USADA as they pursued Lance Armstrong on doping charges. Is this the kind of organisation you want to associate with?

Armstrong may no longer be sponsored by Nike, but are you sure he will personally receive no financial benefit, direct or indirect, from sales of Livestrong merchandise?

Even the name "Fight With Us" that has been announced as the marketing slogan is the wrong message on so many levels.

First of all, it perpetuates the message that cancer can be beaten by "fighting", and if you don't fight hard enough (bring on the cheerleaders) you will suffer the consequences. This is great marketing, but the wrong message to give to people dealing with the disease in their own, sometimes discreet, way.

Then of course there is the fighting connotation with regards to the sport of hockey. This is a disease in itself, especially in mens hockey.

The commercialisation of cancer is wrong, and that is what you are participating in.

Regards,

frenchfry

 

[D-Queued]

CBC's The National news program will be covering this story tonight.

At least one member of this Forum was asked for an interview.

Dave.

 

[frenchfry]

CBC's The National news program will be covering this story tonight.

At least one member of this Forum was asked for an interview.

Dave.

Here is a puff piece from CBC. The old "its for cancer" routine works every time. Too much good for too many people is a great smokescreen for slogging overpriced merchandise.

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl...hip-livestrong-foundation-tessa-bonhomme.html

 

[northstar]

CBC's The National news program will be covering this story tonight.

At least one member of this Forum was asked for an interview.

Dave.

I watched the news clip. It was short but to the point. I thought the reporting was a little biased in favor of Livestrong but overall not bad. I liked Wendy Mesley’s lead-in question, Why are these yellow and black jerseys making Canadians see red?

Scott Smith from Hockey Canada looked very uncomfortable explaining their position. It’s just a bad idea on so many levels. Turning a national team into a billboard for Livestrong. Selling out to a charity associated with the biggest fraud in sport. Selling out to an American charity that provide little benefits to Canadians. At least it’s made the national news now.

I've made some comments on Hockey Canada’s facebook page and elsewhere.

Hopefully public pressure will make HC back out of this sponsorship or at least make them apologize for this poor decision.  

 

[frenchfry]

I watched the news clip. It was short but to the point. I think the reporting was a little biased in favor of Livestrong but overall not bad. I liked Wendy Mesley’s lead-in question, Why are these yellow and black jerseys making Canadians see red?

Scott Smith from Hockey Canada looked very uncomfortable explaining their position. It’s just a bad idea on so many levels. Turning a national team into a billboard for Livestrong. Selling out to a charity associated with the biggest fraud in sport. Selling out to an American charity that provide little benefits to Canadians. At least it’s made the national news now.

I’ve made some comments on Hockey Canada’s facebook page and elsewhere.

Hopefully public pressure will make HC reverse this decision.  

So far the comments are 100% towards questioning the relationship with Livestrong or downright negative.

At least we are now at a point where we no longer blindly accept the corporate marketing of otherwise legitimate causes.

It would be interesting to know how many messages Hockey Canada has received so far.

 

[frenchfry]

Is Livestrong becoming nothing more than a marketing tool of Nike?

In this article there are numerous references to "Nike Livestrong"

http://www.businesswire.com/news/ho...-Introduces-2013-LIVESTRONG-Team-Canada-World

Nike Team LIVESTRONG ambassador Tessa Bonhomme ...

...Joe Monahan from Nike LIVESTRONG

An interesting question is how much of Livestrong merchandise sales revenue goes to Nike, how much to Livestrong, and how much to Wonderboy.

 

[D-Queued]

Is Livestrong becoming nothing more than a marketing tool of Nike?

In this article there are numerous references to "Nike Livestrong"

http://www.businesswire.com/news/ho...-Introduces-2013-LIVESTRONG-Team-Canada-World





An interesting question is how much of Livestrong merchandise sales revenue goes to Nike, how much to Livestrong, and how much to Wonderboy.

Good questions.

Dave.

 

[blackcat]

said "ALL" profits, once, to LS org. That is what was said once. no reference to Lance.

Ofcourse, what was failed to note, was what transfer pricing Nike were putting on wholesale merch before they sold it. And what Lance' annual contract was with Nike.

Failed to mention that. Because, it was not like they calculated profits on the per unit pricing out of asian sweatshops.

yeah.

remember when they said the swatch of yellow on the 9/12 merch, the forerunner to the Livestrong line, was giving one buck for each unit sold. But the market value on the yellow ribon/swatch = much more than one buck.

and yeah, I intentionally got the number wrong on that first line of Armstrong merchandise. cannot remember the number. it was the first date, or date of diagnosis of the cancer. instead, i substituted the Glenn Beck Project number.

 

[frenchfry]

said "ALL" profits, once, to LS org. That is what was said once. no reference to Lance.

Ofcourse, what was failed to note, was what transfer pricing Nike were putting on wholesale merch before they sold it. And what Lance' annual contract was with Nike.

Failed to mention that. Because, it was not like they calculated profits on the per unit pricing out of asian sweatshops.

yeah.

remember when they said the swatch of yellow on the 9/12 merch, the forerunner to the Livestrong line, was giving one buck for each unit sold. But the market value on the yellow ribon/swatch = much more than one buck.

and yeah, I intentionally got the number wrong on that first line of Armstrong merchandise. cannot remember the number. it was the first date, or date of diagnosis of the cancer. instead, i substituted the Glenn Beck Project number.

As you point out, "all profits" is totally meaningless without a breakdown of who is getting a slice BEFORE profits. Nike is not doing this out of the goodness in their hearts - if they have hearts which I seriously doubt.

 

[blackcat]

As you point out, "all profits" is totally meaningless without a breakdown of who is getting a slice BEFORE profits. Nike is not doing this out of the goodness in their hearts - if they have hearts which I seriously doubt.

@ transfer pricing.

what gov'ts are now competing with, as the multinationals become the new gov't, and register some works in caymans et al.

and the paddies really f'ed things with their cost of money, and the neo-lib company taxation, and breaks to bono. break is voicebox instead, pls.

this makes sense

 

[D-Queued]

It doesn't matter if Nike profits directly. They get ALL the marketing value.

This decision by the Cdn Women's Hockey Team is completely unjustifiable.

Here was the choice for a cause to support:

1. Terry Fox

National Hero
Died while raising awareness about Cancer

2. Lance Armstrong

Biggest fraud in the History of Sport
Used the Cancer shield to hide his lies about doping and increase his profits

One died for the cause, while the other lied and used the cause to to increase the fraud.

Which one does the National Team choose?

Dave.

 

[huntelk]

The team Canada jersey has left a bad taste. I was looking around the CBC site for more info and found this from Jan 2012.

Is Livestrong more about Lance than cancer?
http://www.cbc.ca/q/blog/2012/01/26/is-livestrong-more-about-lance-than-cancer/
17 min interview with Bill Gifford

 

[thehog]

They have a new logo apparently.

 

[TheEnoculator]

The team Canada jersey has left a bad taste. I was looking around the CBC site for more info and found this from Jan 2012.

Is Livestrong more about Lance than cancer?
http://www.cbc.ca/q/blog/2012/01/26/is-livestrong-more-about-lance-than-cancer/
17 min interview with Bill Gifford

Even the name of the organization was named after its founder based on his name. Why does this even need to be discussed?

 

[D-Queued]

Even the name of the organization was named after its founder based on his name. Why does this even need to be discussed?

Because, after pointing this out to Hockey Canada, they don't get it.

<suggestive paraphrasing>...but it says Nike Team Livestrong, and it doesn't say anything about Lance Armstrong...

Apparently that makes all the difference.

However, in that case, it just looks like a BS PR stunt by Nike.

Now, if Nike would support a real charity, or even provide general support for WADA, some of us might be less inclined to see them as evil incarnate. It is unfortunate that they just keep doing their best to be so convincing about their poor choices.

Dave.

 

[thehog]

They have a new logo apparently.

Doesn't look any different to me.

http://www.businessinsider.com/livestrong-made-a-new-logo-2013-3

 

[RobbieCanuck]

[/B]

So you don't care what a person's motivation is, just so long as they incriminate the people you dislike? I think most people who have been following this agree that if Floyd would have been given a ride with Radioshaft, none of this would have ever happend. I will be impressed if, and when, something really happens in this case and Floyd receives a settlement from his wb case and he pays everyone back and gives the rest to charity. Like him or not, Armstrong's charity has done more good in the world than Floyd's revelations ever will. Armstong is probably a jerk, and a doper, but what is Floyd?. . four words quickly come to mind: opportunistic, calculating, insincere, hypocritical.

First of all get your fact straight. There are two Livestrongs (or at least there were). One that does charity work for cancer, not cancer research as so many uninformed commentators believe and incorrectly state. That charity does help cancer victims by assisting those victims in making choices. In other words Livestrong as a charity gives cancer victims advice. In that context the charity does some good. But at the same time there are literally thousands of organizations unattached to a phoney manufactured hero, whose own cancer was probably due to taking PEDs, that give cancer victims advice without asking for a donation.

The other Livestrong was LA's personal company that was paid monies from LA's appearances and endorsements etc. This was the Livestrong from which he paid himself, to the point where his estimated net worth is reported as about $127 million.

Compare this to the Terry Fox Foundation which has directly contributed over $600 million to cancer research. This cancer foundation is based on the activities of a real hero and real athlete. Google it and see for yourself. Terry Fox and his family received NOTHING for his achievements.

What Landis's revelations have done is blow the lid off the culture of doping in cycling. His admissions were the impetus for the USADA investigation that brought down a true fraudster. And that is not to say that Landis did not do his share of defrauding. But LA has done twiddly for cycling. His only concern has always been his own self-serving interests and self aggrandizement. Armstrong is not probably a jerk he is a jerk and much worse.

Landis has gone through hell, and is now at least come fully clean, and has no delusions about his personal reputation or a future career in sport, while LA continues to prevaricate to protect his narcissistic @&&. That is LA's motivation!!!!!!

 

[Semper Fidelis]

First of all get your fact straight. There are two Livestrongs (or at least there were). One that does charity work for cancer, not cancer research as so many uninformed commentators believe and incorrectly state. That charity does help cancer victims by assisting those victims in making choices. In other words Livestrong as a charity gives cancer victims advice. In that context the charity does some good. But at the same time there are literally thousands of organizations unattached to a phoney manufactured hero, whose own cancer was probably due to taking PEDs, that give cancer victims advice without asking for a donation.

The other Livestrong was LA's personal company that was paid monies from LA's appearances and endorsements etc. This was the Livestrong from which he paid himself, to the point where his estimated net worth is reported as about $127 million.

Compare this to the Terry Fox Foundation which has directly contributed over $600 million to cancer research. This cancer foundation is based on the activities of a real hero and real athlete. Google it and see for yourself. Terry Fox and his family received NOTHING for his achievements.

What Landis's revelations have done is blow the lid off the culture of doping in cycling. His admissions were the impetus for the USADA investigation that brought down a true fraudster. And that is not to say that Landis did not do his share of defrauding. But LA has done twiddly for cycling. His only concern has always been his own self-serving interests and self aggrandizement. Armstrong is not probably a jerk he is a jerk and much worse.

Landis has gone through hell, and is now at least come fully clean, and has no delusions about his personal reputation or a future career in sport, while LA continues to prevaricate to protect his narcissistic @&&. That is LA's motivation!!!!!!

Give the Phooey Fairness Fund a chance!
http://hongkongphooeyfairnessfund.wordpress.com/

Terry Fox foundation is the real deal. Sad that many in the USA don't know the story. Worth a read to anyone who wants to be inspired.

 

[D-Queued]

Give the Phooey Fairness Fund a chance!
http://hongkongphooeyfairnessfund.wordpress.com/

Terry Fox foundation is the real deal. Sad that many in the USA don't know the story. Worth a read to anyone who wants to be truly inspired.

<minor edit>

Dave.

 

[frenchfry]

Terry Fox foundation is the real deal. Sad that many in the USA don't know the story. Worth a read to anyone who wants to be inspired.

But I bet they don't sell nifty NIKE merchandise and peddle awareness and hope to the masses.

Livestrong is an excellent example of how cancer related fundraising is circumscribed by the profit motive, and the network of corporate entities that sustain the cross-marketing of the cause.

Livestrong has taken the commercial approach to new levels. Robb Heineman, the chief executive of Sporting KC, said in a statement that Livestrong was “utilizing aggressive tactics designed to force us into an unsatisfactory arrangement.” Clearly their main goal isn't funding cancer "awareness".

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...ripped-from-kansas-city-s-soccer-stadium.html

I would think that Hockey Canada signed the deal with Livestrong to get sponsorship money. Nike would have signed to sell merchandise. Livestrong would have signed to get what is left over from the merchandise sales after everyone else is paid off, and because they are probably now quite dependant on Nike for their existance. Some people would say the fact that Livestrong, a cancer charity, gets something at all that we shouldn't question this deal. There is, however, a lack of transparency and confusion of interests that begs further scrutiny. If the goal was really financing a cancer charity, there are better ones out there.