Interesting piece on Livestrong

[Anonymous]

Yo it's OK TFF I got this. Hey this is almost like the good old days last July,isn't it.

Sure is. The fail is strong with this one. Pretty soon, it will be time to post some pictures instead of writing words.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Sure is. The fail is strong with this one. Pretty soon, it will be time to post some pictures instead of writing words.

It's a little more time consuming but oh so much more satisfying.

 

[miloman]

Can you provide links which show that anyone who donated to FFF felt any different than the two individuals that Dr Mas quoted?
I have never believed that PS actually pays people to come on this forum, in your case however I really hope that is what is happening. Because it is either that or you are the biggest tool in the world.

Tell me how he has used LAF to "cover his doper activities?" Show me were everyone says its OK that Floyd took them and their money? You can't make such blanket statements without proof. You obviously don't like the guy and neither do I, but the evidence is what it is. Until there is proof, it's just your opinion. So provide the proof or state your opinion. Opinions are interesting too, just don't offer them up as anything else.

 

[Siriuscat]

Hey Miloman....you're not that F***wit Coolhand from RBR in disguise are you??? Going to ask for the head of Floyd on a spike next??

 

[Anonymous]

His trolling technique looks suspiciously like BPC's.

My favorite part was that after acting like an expert on Armstrong's fraudulent charity, he was asked, since he obviously knew so much, if he could provide more information. At which point he came back with, "I don't know anything about it." Classic.

Yea, it warrants this:

 

[Hugh Januss]

Tell me how he has used LAF to "cover his doper activities?" Show me were everyone says its OK that Floyd took them and their money? You can't make such blanket statements without proof. You obviously don't like the guy and neither do I, but the evidence is what it is. Until there is proof, it's just your opinion. So provide the proof or state your opinion. Opinions are interesting too, just don't offer them up as anything else.

Show me proof that Lance has not used his charity and "standing" to help cover up his doping. Show me proof that people think they were fooled by Floyd.
At this point I would say the smart money would be on the statement "Lance is not a doper" as being nothing more than an opinion.

 

[Martin318is]

People, keep it civil and on topic please.

 

[Anonymous]

Cool!!!!!!

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Really, which ones? Educate me. You don’t seem to take anything about Armstrong at face value, why did you here, with Floyd, with this and ESPN no less? Really? Could it be because it fits your particular view that everything Lance is everything BAD! Did you do the same fact checking you purport to do on anything Armstrong’s people say and do? Who are these people saying these things? Where is the report? I for one would like to see how Floyd’s money was spent and by whom. Don’t get me wrong, I am not a fan of Armstrong, but I think you need to hold anything regarding Floyd to the same standards. I will anxiously await the report!

Rather than this new diversionary tactic of making it personal (I see you have gone the same with HJ) .... why did you avoid answering my simple question? Should those that bought Lances books also expect a refund?

As for educating you -jeez, that is all I have been doing but I'm not a miracle worker.

I do the same fact checking on everyone and when possible provide links.
You made claims about the FFF - and I posted a link full of rebuttals from a credible journalist, have you anything to suggest that what BDF wrote was untrue? (Of course you would have to read it first)

 

[miloman]

Rather than this new diversionary tactic of making it personal (I see you have gone the same with HJ) .... why did you avoid answering my simple question? Should those that bought Lances books also expect a refund?As for educating you -jeez, that is all I have been doing but I'm not a miracle worker.

I do the same fact checking on everyone and when possible provide links.
You made claims about the FFF - and I posted a link full of rebuttals from a credible journalist, have you anything to suggest that what BDF wrote was untrue? (Of course you would have to read it first)

I bought both Lances' and Floyd's books. Is Floyd offering a refund when he hits "pay dirt?" Do you think he will come through. I will expect my money from Lance right after Floyd makes good! I still want to see the accounting for the FFF. Can you show me where it is posted?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

"Armstrong has however used it as a cover for his own cheating doper activities."

Do you have proof of this? I would like to see were this information came from. Can you provide a link or is this just your opinion? Unless you have proof of this, I think you should maybe tone it down a bit.

I always liked this quote from Lance in Vanity Fair 2008 when he was annoucing his return:

Armstrong recognizes that the European press may very well be laying in wait for him, hoping he’ll fail. “I didn’t go out of my way to make friends with the French media,” he says. “In fact, I was combative. I was unavailable, arrogant, and I was that way to a lot of them. Anybody who wrote a negative article: Done. Never speak to them again. I won’t do that this time. I mean, these daily or weekly [phone conferences]? Everyone’s invited. From the bitterest of rivals I’ve ever had in the pressroom: Get on call. If you’ve got a question, ask it.… They’ll realize that I’m not messing around.” The difference this time, he says, is that he won’t be flaunting his Americanism in their faces. “The constituency that I represent,” he says, “is now cancer survivors.”

 

[Hugh Januss]

I bought both Lances' and Floyd's books. Is Floyd offering a refund when he hits "pay dirt?" Do you think he will come through. I will expect my money from Lance right after Floyd makes good! I still want to see the accounting for the FFF. Can you show me where it is posted?

You poor sucker, I didn't buy either one. Is that what you are so upset about? Just go ahead and admit it. You got taken in by both Lance and Floyd when they were lying. The only thing you seem to have a hard time with is the truth.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Cool!!!!!!

Did this thread just close for about 5 minutes and then reopen or have I consumed too much Ommegang Abbey Ale whilst preparing payroll this evening?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I bought both Lances' and Floyd's books. Is Floyd offering a refund when he hits "pay dirt?" Do you think he will come through. I will expect my money from Lance right after Floyd makes good! I still want to see the accounting for the FFF. Can you show me where it is posted?

Again - you have avoided answering the question, do you want me to write it again?

Yes - Floyd has said he will payback those that made contributions..... again it was in that ESPN piece that although you have not read it you are already trying to thrash.

No, I have not seen the FFF accounts (nor did I suggest I have) - but again do you have anything to provide to suggest that BDFs article was wrong?

 

[Ferminal]

I still want to see the accounting for the FFF. Can you show me where it is posted?

Again, this is irrelevant to LiveSTRONG, if you want to discuss FFF why don't you make a thread and why don't you actually do the research?

 

[Nick777]

Really, which ones? Educate me. You don’t seem to take anything about Armstrong at face value, why did you here, with Floyd, with this and ESPN no less? Really? Could it be because it fits your particular view that everything Lance is everything BAD! Did you do the same fact checking you purport to do on anything Armstrong’s people say and do? Who are these people saying these things? Where is the report? I for one would like to see how Floyd’s money was spent and by whom. Don’t get me wrong, I am not a fan of Armstrong, but I think you need to hold anything regarding Floyd to the same standards. I will anxiously await the report!

A sure sign that you are.

As a phrase, it's right up there with "I'm not racist, but..."

 

[Martin318is]

Did this thread just close for about 5 minutes and then reopen or have I consumed too much Ommegang Abbey Ale whilst preparing payroll this evening?

Yes it did.
It was closed by a mod because of the volume of post reports that we all started getting in our inboxes an hour or two ago.

The mod that did it hadn't realised that I had already gone in and pruned out the relevant posts (as well as posting a request to get back on Topic).

So I reopened it.

The request should really be a warning though - to ALL involved - please play the topic and not the man and please keep within the forum rules or there will be ramifications.

 

[miloman]

Again - you have avoided answering the question, do you want me to write it again?

Yes - Floyd has said he will payback those that made contributions..... again it was in that ESPN piece that although you have not read it you are already trying to thrash.

No, I have not seen the FFF accounts (nor did I suggest I have) - but again do you have anything to provide to suggest that BDFs article was wrong?

I never purported to have proof to the contrary. My point is, one must treat any information with the same skepticism regardless which side of the fence they are on. You cite one article, one source and yet when it comes to Armstrong you are not so accepting. It takes much, much more to convince you, and even then, I don’t think you buy it. I don’t always believe what I see in print and based on some of the things you have said, neither do you. I’m not so sure your intentions are to educate me so much as it is to make me think like you. Sorry, I’m not drinking that Kool-Aid. I want to keep an open mind to the possibilities. I guess it comes down to deciding between the devil you know vs. the devil you don’t know. I’m not sure which side I am on, only time will tell.

 

[kurtinsc]

A sure sign that you are.

As a phrase, it's right up there with "I'm not racist, but..."

No, it's not the same as that at all.

It really is possible to think the LAF is a decent charity and that Lance doped and cheated. I know some of you seem to think it's against the laws of nature to do so... but it is in fact possible.

I'm beginning to come around to the idea that Lance's input into the LAF is such that it's NOT doing what it is supposed to based on their mission statement. The Haiti thing was stupid, and the focus away from helping cancer survivors and more toward Lance's nebulous "awareness" goal is not good either.

Look... I'm not a huge Microsoft fan and I don't really like Bill Gates... but I think much of what the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation does is excellent. I don't secretly own microsoft stock and have Bill Gates pictures with hearts surrounding his face just because I like what his charity does.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I never purported to have proof to the contrary. My point is, one must treat any information with the same skepticism regardless which side of the fence they are on. You cite one article, one source and yet when it comes to Armstrong you are not so accepting. It takes much, much more to convince you, and even then, I don’t think you buy it. I don’t always believe what I see in print and based on some of the things you have said, neither do you. I’m not so sure your intentions are to educate me so much as it is to make me think like you. Sorry, I’m not drinking that Kool-Aid. I want to keep an open mind to the possibilities. I guess it comes down to deciding between the devil you know vs. the devil you don’t know. I’m not sure which side I am on, only time will tell.

Still no answer to my original question.

I treat information as information. Yes I cited one article - one article more than you have and so far you have brought nothing to back up your opinion.
So was your goal to avoid all the negative comments on Livestrong?

 

[Ferminal]

No, it's not the same as that at all.

It really is possible to think the LAF is a decent charity and that Lance doped and cheated. I know some of you seem to think it's against the laws of nature to do so... but it is in fact possible.

I'm beginning to come around to the idea that Lance's input into the LAF is such that it's NOT doing what it is supposed to based on their mission statement. The Haiti thing was stupid, and the focus away from helping cancer survivors and more toward Lance's nebulous "awareness" goal is not good either.

Look... I'm not a huge Microsoft fan and I don't really like Bill Gates... but I think much of what the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation does is excellent. I don't secretly own microsoft stock and have Bill Gates pictures with hearts surrounding his face just because I like what his charity does.

How much have the Gates given from their own pocket over the years? tens, hundreds of millions?

How much has Lance given to the LAF/Livestrong?

I think if Lance was actively funding his charity then it might ease some of the criticism. Especially if he was giving more in financial terms than he was taking out from Livestrong branding revenues, travel expenses etc.

 

[Martin318is]

How much have the Gates given from their own pocket over the years? tens, hundreds of millions?

I believe the figure has crossed the barrier into the Billions column. Bill, along with people such as Warren Buffet has created a group of the mega wealthy who are in the process of donating the bulk of their respective wealths to people and organisations around the world. Whats-his-face from Facebook has also apparently said he would do the same.

The point however is that Lance is using the charity to fund his lifestyle - which is a lot worse than the exact opposite of the above.

 

[kurtinsc]

How much have the Gates given from their own pocket over the years? tens, hundreds of millions?

How much has Lance given to the LAF/Livestrong?

I think if Lance was actively funding his charity then it might ease some of the criticism. Especially if he was giving more in financial terms than he was taking out from Livestrong branding revenues, travel expenses etc.

Again... you're trying to make it about Lance. That isn't the case. Regardless of how Lance deals with the charity, if the charity does good work then it IS okay to hate lance and like the charity.

The charity appears to be making that harder to do by moving away from what I viewed as their good points and moving more toward "lance talking points"... which I've always been ambivalent toward or disagreed with. But that's not an issue for me regarding Lance. I don't really care much about him to be honest. I probably don't hate him as much as many who post here do, but most people who follow cycling in my area think I'm a "hater" because I do come out and say that he doped.

My issues with the charity... are with the charity. If they were behaving differently then I wouldn't be wavering in my belief that they did good work. That really is not linked toward my views on Lance.


My not liking Bill Gates has nothing to do with his charity work. It's about how he has run his business and treated others while doing so. I like his charity quite a bit... but that's not going to influence how I feel about him. And how I view him won't influence how I feel about the charity he started.


I think not being able to view the LAF seperately from Lance and judge each on their own merits is a problem both for Lance fanboys and Lance haters. You may come to a conclusion that both Lance and the charity are great or that both Lance and the charity suck... but you shouldn't believe the charity sucks simply because it bears Lance's name.

 

[Ferminal]

Again... you're trying to make it about Lance. That isn't the case. Regardless of how Lance deals with the charity, if the charity does good work then it IS okay to hate lance and like the charity.

The charity appears to be making that harder to do by moving away from what I viewed as their good points and moving more toward "lance talking points"... which I've always been ambivalent toward or disagreed with. But that's not an issue for me regarding Lance. I don't really care much about him to be honest. I probably don't hate him as much as many who post here do, but most people who follow cycling in my area think I'm a "hater" because I do come out and say that he doped.

My issues with the charity... are with the charity. If they were behaving differently then I wouldn't be wavering in my belief that they did good work. That really is not linked toward my views on Lance.


My not liking Bill Gates has nothing to do with his charity work. It's about how he has run his business and treated others while doing so. I like his charity quite a bit... but that's not going to influence how I feel about him. And how I view him won't influence how I feel about the charity he started.


I think not being able to view the LAF seperately from Lance and judge each on their own merits is a problem both for Lance fanboys and Lance haters. You may come to a conclusion that both Lance and the charity are great or that both Lance and the charity suck... but you shouldn't believe the charity sucks simply because it bears Lance's name.

I think it is about Lance, because here (i.e. in the cycling word) it's about whether or not Lance can be forgiven for being doper, sociopath, fraud etc etc (whatever people want to call him) because of all the "good work" done by the charity he established.

If Lance gains more (either financially or otherwise) from the charity and associated branding, then it's impossible to use his "great work for cancer" as the defender of all his less savoury actions. Lance gaining personally from the charity brings into question whether or not his motives have been for personal gain, or to genuinely help the millions of people impacted by cancer.

Now, this doesn't question the great work done by the charity, which is done independent of the motives of Lance. Charities generally do good regardless of the motives of their founder.

If Bill Gates was only pouring millions/billions into his foundation to improve his questionable public image (this could very well be the case), we would have a right to question the credibility of his actions. At the same time, this would not take anything away from the work done by his foundation.

Of course the fact that financially Gates loses a lot from his philanthropy suggests that it's more likely his motives are genuine. This is the reason why I asked how much Lance gives to his own charity (again, this doesn't bring into question the work of the charity, only the credibility of Juan).

 

[AussieGoddess]

How much have the Gates given from their own pocket over the years? tens, hundreds of millions?

How much has Lance given to the LAF/Livestrong?

I think if Lance was actively funding his charity then it might ease some of the criticism. Especially if he was giving more in financial terms than he was taking out from Livestrong branding revenues, travel expenses etc.

You've got it in one. And I agree with what you said just above as well.

It is hard to seperate Lance and the charity as he has deliberately entrenched the charity and his own financial future together. The charity is ALL about him. Which would be fine if it werent for the fact that the charity is paying a lot of his expenses.

The charity promotes Lance ... a GREAT deal. when you do work for a charity - its supposed to be the celebrity that promotes the charity. Not the other way around.

Mainly the issue I dislike the most is the way he promotes his return as being 'for cancer'. The livestrong.com v livestong.org stuff .... proves beyond doubt for me that its NOT about cancer.

Livestrong developed their brand name ..... brilliantly so. The marketing ideals behind it are fantastic. They built this brand name - and then it was decided that they would licence their name to a for-profit business to market lifestyle type products (healthy living etc). It was a good fit ... all is good. Livestrong got a share of the equity in the company ..... all great.

Except - that Lance got a good share of the equity too. For what?

The company (Demand Media) then developed the Livestrong.com website .... and gained substantial revenue from advertising on the site, considering their main advertising was traffic from Lance posting his video's on this site.

Lance buying a domain, starting a healthy lifestyle program and promoting it - and making a profit is absolutely fine. Doing a dodgy deal with his own charity to ride on the coat-tails of their brand success is NOT.

If Livestrong wanted a lifestyle program - they could (and should) have developed it themself .... easy enough to do and they had the executvie ability to do it. But they chose not to ... they chose to allow a company associated with the charities prime sponsor to trade off its reputation for their financial gain instead of the charity's.

If Lances return was actually all about cancer and raising awareness (and funds) for cancer .... he would have posted his videos on the charity website itself. Instead he chose to set up a for-profit web site, riding off the underlying charitable principles of Livestrong and make substantial personal profit.

It is misleading. That is what I object to.