Lance and le tour... new book

[Anonymous]

Just to be clear, because the Hog has muddied the issue, he is talking about a different book than the one in the OP. He is referring to "Lance" by John Wilcockson while the OP is about "Lance & Le Tour" by Matt Lamy.

well thats helpful...

 

[ImmaculateKadence]

I must say all this discussion has sparked my interest in reading this book.

I wonder if my local Barnes and Noble will have it....

 

[BroDeal]

I must say all this discussion has sparked my interest in reading this book.

I wonder if my local Barnes and Noble will have it....

If it is like most Armstrong books then check the fairy tale area of the fiction section. It should be right next to the Brothers Grimm.

 

[Anonymous]

well i read that extract.. didnt realy grab me.. sorry..

 

[ImmaculateKadence]

If it is like most Armstrong books then check the fairy tale area of the fiction section. It should be right next to the Brothers Grimm.

I'll be sure to do that, thanks.

 

[Big GMaC]

Hi,

Thought I'd share knowledge of this as I've just finished reading it and got to say I'm rather impressed with it. Is a great read for any Lance fan.

An excellent book, well worth the money and quite different from the other Lance books. It's neither pro or anti-Lance, it just lets you form your own opinion on the man. Loads of stuff in there I'd never read before, particularly liked the interviews with his former team-mates and associates.

It's called Lance and Le Tour - The Complete History of Cycling's Most Uneasy Alliance

Picked mine up from a shop called cycling weekly shop (cyclingweekly.ipcshop.co.uk).

Hope everyone enjoys it as much as I did!

compare with one of the comments under the article on the CW page

Excellent book, well worth the money and quite different from the other Lance books. It's neither pro or anti-Lance, it just lets you form your own opinion on the man. Loads of stuff in there I'd never read before, particularly liked the interviews with his former team-mates and associates.

nice work Lamy, but you don't have a hope of rivaling all the BPC/Sproket 01/Max Power/The Arbiter sock puppets

 

[Anonymous]

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I really don't care what you choose to spew about Lance Armstrong, but you should leave the LAF out of it. You may not agree with or support its particular charitable purposes, but by all objective accounts, it's a well-run, quality charity.

Yea, yea, cancer cancer cancer. Can't attack anyone who had cancer. Cancer is bad and attacking LAF for being a poorly run organization is going to make cancer stronger and even more evil...we got the memo.

 

[thehog]

Yea, yea, cancer cancer cancer. Can't attack anyone who had cancer. Cancer is bad and attacking LAF for being a poorly run organization is going to make cancer stronger and even more evil...we got the memo.

Hope rides again.

or was it dope rides again?

 

[Mellow Velo]

I think the current blog link in the clinic is this Christmas's must read on Lance.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Well that's learnt me for writing the damn thing. Still, maybe my next one - I can't decide whether to do Saddam, Bin Laden or Ahmadenijad - will cause less grief.

But if anybody actually likes Lance then they might like the book.

As an aside - this forum is the only place I've ever seen people condemn a guy for being involved with a charity. ("Dr Barnado? He was a massive big head." "World Wildlife Fund? Where does that panda get off?" "Medecins sans frontiers? Don't doctors get paid enough without taking free exotic holidays too?")

Matt,
I have highlighted the above as I think it is a rather telling admission and insight in to your book.

When I read a book on anyone I prefer to be able to make up my own mind on whether I 'like' the subject or not.

Armstrong has not been "condemned" for having a charity - setting up and supporting a charity is a fantastic, worthwhile and commendable thing to do - and Armstrong deserves praise for that.
However, he and the charity should be subject to scrutiny and not be 'given a pass' irrespective of how noble the cause.

His admission that he has 'equity' in Demand Media who own Livestrong.com takes a lot of the 'gloss' off his motives and raises legitimate questions on how and why he promotes the Livestrong brand.

Have his charities been covered in your book?

 

[Anonymous]

but the original reviewer said

It's neither pro or anti-Lance, it just lets you form your own opinion on the man.

gotta feel a bit sorry for matt.. must wonder what on earth he was thinking of coming on here..

 

[pedaling squares]

Well kudos to the author for responding to comments about his book and especially for using some humour/cheek. Given the list of interviewees, I suspect that they told tales that would please the boss, but you can't always fault the interviewer for that. We all bemoan the lack of investigative journalists willing to look beyond the image, ask the hard questions, and seek the truth. But not every book has to be about doping or the man's shortcomings of personality. It's up to us to endorse the book by purchasing it, or condemn the book to the discount bin by ignoring it. I'm buying a copy for dimspace and will send it in time for Christmas along with a lump of environmentally friendly coal. I would send a copy to Race Radio but he still hasn't thanked me for the yellow wristbands.

 

[BroDeal]

Have his charities been covered in your book?

Let's get right down to the nitty gritty. Does it cover the mounds of evidence about his doping? If it does not then it is just another hagiography. It is is objective then it might be worth reading.

 

[Moller]

Matt Lamy did an q&a on the cycling weekly website about the book, during it he said that he tried to interview Pat McQuaid for the book, but Mcquaid turned the interview down because Lance had not given him (McQuaid) had permission to speak to Lamy.
Hmmmm.

 

[Anonymous]

Well kudos to the author for responding to comments about his book and especially for using some humour/cheek. Given the list of interviewees, I suspect that they told tales that would please the boss, but you can't always fault the interviewer for that. We all bemoan the lack of investigative journalists willing to look beyond the image, ask the hard questions, and seek the truth. But not every book has to be about doping or the man's shortcomings of personality. It's up to us to endorse the book by purchasing it, or condemn the book to the discount bin by ignoring it. I'm buying a copy for dimspace and will send it in time for Christmas along with a lump of environmentally friendly coal. I would send a copy to Race Radio but he still hasn't thanked me for the yellow wristbands.

some of these logs please and some coal
any lance books i will give to our local book-cycle rather than burning them (they are actually based in exeter and are rather excellent fellows)

 

[derailleur]

Actually....

Yet after spending $10 million in solicitation costs, the group brought in only $22 million in contributions, according to AIP’s analysis of LAF’s 2005 financial statements.

Actually....

I just browsed over to http://www.charitynavigator.org and signed in and looked and the LAF's FYE 2005 statement shows they spent about $6 million in fundraising and $2 million in administration and took in $26 million from direct fundraising and another $26 million in "other revenue". So I don't know where "AIP" are getting their numbers but I don't see a 45% ratio in there anywhere.

77-82% of their expenses each year are "program expenses," meaning funds disbursed to those being helped by the program. The rest go to admin and fundraising, by far the bulk of that being fundraising.

They aren't the most efficient charity, pretty much middle of the road (about the same as the American Cancer Society). Could they do better, like the Susan G. Komen Foundation does in spending only 7% of the quarter-billion a year they take in? Maybe. But the LAF has a grizzled, one-nutted, old crank stomper to sell, and the Komen Foundation wants you to help save your mom's tits. No question who's got the easier job there.

The accusations of fraud being thrown around here don't hold water.

 

[peloton]

Matt Lamy did an q&a on the cycling weekly website about the book, during it he said that he tried to interview Pat McQuaid for the book, but Mcquaid turned the interview down because Lance had not given him (McQuaid) had permission to speak to Lamy.
Hmmmm.

That's what the bribe is for....

Pretty hilarious, you can read the chat here
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/429995/webchat-with-lance-le-tour-author-matt-lamy.html

 

[ChrisE]

You guys crack me up.

 

[Anonymous]

Matt Lamy did an q&a on the cycling weekly website about the book, during it he said that he tried to interview Pat McQuaid for the book, but Mcquaid turned the interview down because Lance had not given him (McQuaid) had permission to speak to Lamy.
Hmmmm.

but, i think its fair to say the actual quote was
"The biggest name was Pat McQuaid, UCI president. His press officer told me McQuaid would be willing to speak to me if the book was authorised by Armstrong. When I said it wasn't, the UCI press officer stopped returning my emails."

theres a bit of a difference between lance not giving him permission and mcquaid turning it down, and the press officer asking if the biography was authorised and on being told no having no further interest.. i think, at least i would hope, that the uci would have the same attitude over an unauthorised biography of any current proffessional to be honest..

if i discovered as a rider that the uci where giving interviews about me, for an unauthorised biography i would go abso-monkeying-lutely ballistic..


as for the Q&A its fairly amusing..i do like the way matt ducks every single drug question.. almost like he doesnt want to upset lance too much in case the lawyers come knocking on the door..

 

[Dominar]

That's the best anti-armstrong rant I've read here so far.

It's irrelevant to how good a cyclist he is.

It's also incredibly ill-informed and displays a complete lack of knowledge as to how modern charities are operated and the strict tax laws/regulations that apply to them.

 

[Race Radio]

It's also incredibly ill-informed and displays a complete lack of knowledge as to how modern charities are operated and the strict tax laws/regulations that apply to them.

You criticize but provide nothing to back up your position, you come across as yet another hater.

Most rational people who attended the ToC saw Livestrong everywhere, but no mention of cancer. The charity was used to build the Armstrong brand, not raise cancer awareness. This brand sells shoes, sunglasses, and beer.

Please tell us how Livestrong benefited from hiring a person to drive a car in front of the race with a loud speaker repeating "GET READY TO CHEER FOR LANCE"? How does this do anything for "Cancer Awareness"?

Do you think it is ethical for Armstrong to use his groupies to assault his critics and drown out rational debate? When Armstrong appeared at the Tour Down Under the media was told that a $1,000,000 donation was given to Livestrong....do you think it is ethical that $0 went to Livestrong and all of that $1,000,000 went into Armstrong's pocket?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

It's also incredibly ill-informed and displays a complete lack of knowledge as to how modern charities are operated and the strict tax laws/regulations that apply to them.

"Obviously the .org is the foundation, .com is a subsidiary of Demand Media. Both the foundation and myself have equity in Demand."
Lance Armstrong interview with ESPN.com in June 2009.

I can understand that the LAF make 'equity' from the association with Demand Media - but I dont see any reason why LA needs to profit also.

 

[thehog]

It's also incredibly ill-informed and displays a complete lack of knowledge as to how modern charities are operated and the strict tax laws/regulations that apply to them.

To be honest suggesting LAF is a charity is overly generous. LAF is a foundation. That is it. It does not prescribe to donate money to cancer research or medicines for those who cannot afford its treatment.

Awareness.

 

[craig1985]

I wouldn't have a problem if LA said his money from racing the TDU was for him, rather then for his charity like he claimed it was. I mean Tiger Woods got $3m for turning up to play a round of golf recently in Melbourne, but unlike Lance, Tiger never said it was going other places other then his back account.

 

[thehog]

I wouldn't have a problem if LA said his money from racing the TDU was for him, rather then for his charity like he claimed it was. I mean Tiger Woods got $3m for turning up to play a round of golf recently in Melbourne, but unlike Lance, Tiger never said it was going other places other then his back account.

I prefer Tiger. He a much better Playboy. At least he spent the 3mill on an escort to later have his wife wrap a 9 iron around his head. Kik never would have wrapped a Trek Madone around Lance's head for cheating on her with that country-rock singer.