Livestrong did you know ...

[Ninety5rpm]

Erik Zabel - a guy who came clean, being compared to LA
Regarding LA, I tend to not like liars, cheats, bullies, hypocrites, and narcissists...that's just me - each to their own.

Came clean? He admitted the absolute minimum in a context in which absolute denial was not practically possible - that he tried EPO for only a week - and luckily that was too long ago for any sanctions to apply.

Nothing against Zabel, I'm just saying that the idea that he "came clean" is laughable.

 

[BroDeal]

Came clean? He admitted the absolute minimum in a context in which absolute denial was not practically possible - that he tried EPO for only a week - and luckily that was too long ago for any sanctions to apply.

Nothing against Zabel, I'm just saying that the idea that he "came clean" is laughable.

Compared to the continued and intelligence insulting lies of Armstrong, Zabel is Abe Freaking Lincoln.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Compared to the continued and intelligence insulting lies of Armstrong, Zabel is Abe Freaking Lincoln.

Come on. He usually goes on and on about being tested over and over and never failing a test. Rarely does he actually flatly deny used PEDs.

 

[Digger]

Came clean? He admitted the absolute minimum in a context in which absolute denial was not practically possible - that he tried EPO for only a week - and luckily that was too long ago for any sanctions to apply.

Nothing against Zabel, I'm just saying that the idea that he "came clean" is laughable.

I'd echo Brodeal below. In the context of LA and some others, he's a walking saint.

 

[Digger]

Come on. He usually goes on and on about being tested over and over and never failing a test. Rarely does he actually flatly deny used PEDs.

Took me about five seconds to find this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AG4odJP-Zuw
Go to 4.45

I'll gladly continue this debate ninety5, but in the interest of not wanting to be banned, I'll keep away from the obvious - in this part of the house anyway.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Compared to the continued and intelligence insulting lies of Armstrong, Zabel is Abe Freaking Lincoln.

You're comparing apples and oranges.

Who knows how much more Zabel would lie if he were put under the spotlights and pressure of a 7-time Tour winner?

Was Armstrong thought to be a big liar before he became so famous (outside of the cycling community)?

To this day, mostly only cycling fans know of Zabel.

 

[elapid]

Yes this is true. But the Armstrong hatred seems to be largely an internet thing. Speak to most people who have some interest in cycling in the real world and in my experience they tend to respect Armstrong. Not everything about him, but you can't really argue with 7 tours and cancer comeback. But when you get on the internet, suddenly there are hordes of passionate Armstrong haters who believe the man has single handedly detroyed cycling and zero respect for his achievements. It's very other-worldly.

Ninety5rpm talks about being objective and then the first half of this post is the most sensible post I've ever seen from TheArbiter. The so-called lovers and haters are irrational in their blinded support or bagging of Lance. I see very few true haters on this forum: most will admire Armstrong for his determination, TdF wins, and raising cancer awareness; but most will also criticize him heavily for many other factors of his professional life. This is both objective and reasonable opinions to conclude. I wouldn't label Ninety5rpm as a lover, but up until this post I would have definitely labelled TheArbiter as a lover. The one thing about TheArbiter's post quoted above that really irks me is that I know he has been on other threads where many of the Lance critics have openly stated that they respect his achievements, yet he continues to ignore this to fit his own stereotype of someone that has formed an objective opinion so he can mislabel them as a Lance hater because they have the temerity to disagree with his opinion.

 

[BroDeal]

Who knows how much more Zabel would lie if he were put under the spotlights and pressure of a 7-time Tour winner?

That is ridiculous. We are supposed to condemn Zabel because if he were more famous he might have turned out to be just as big of a liar as Armstrong? We can only judge people based on what they have done, not on what they might have done if their circumstances were different.

 

[Eva Maria]

Came clean? He admitted the absolute minimum in a context in which absolute denial was not practically possible - that he tried EPO for only a week - and luckily that was too long ago for any sanctions to apply.

Nothing against Zabel, I'm just saying that the idea that he "came clean" is laughable.

Faced with a huge amount more evidence then Zabel Armstrong chose to lie, lie, lie

 

[Ninety5rpm]

That is ridiculous. We are supposed to condemn Zabel because if he were more famous he might have turned out to be just as big of a liar as Armstrong? We can only judge people based on what they have done, not on what they might have done if their circumstances were different.

Who said anything about condemning Zabel?

I'm saying it's not fair to compare the statements of an ultra-famous cyclist whose words are spoken in the context of the whole world to the words of a cyclist's cyclist whose words are basically confined to the cycling world.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Faced with a huge amount more evidence then Zabel Armstrong chose to lie, lie, lie

So, you don't think Zabel lied when he said he tried EPO only for a week?

Both lied exactly the same: only as much as needed for their particular situation to save their bu++s in that particular context. Very human.

 

[Eva Maria]

So, you don't think Zabel lied when he said he tried EPO only for a week?

Both lied exactly the same: only as much as needed for their particular situation to save their bu++s in that particular context. Very human.

One of the more interesting parts of the Frieburg investigation is that it back up Zabel's claim.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

One of the more interesting parts of the Frieburg investigation is that it back up Zabel's claim.

Oh, okay, one of the best climbing sprinters in the 90s and 00s was clean among all the dopers.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Firstly - Lance is a professional sports personality - his is entitled to make money from his name. I have no problem with him making an income through appearance fees at races, as that has been happening for decades and it is a legitimate source of income made by all the top riders.

Quite simply - to the victor* the spoils.
*(For the sake of this theory I will assume he won everything on bread and water)

....All I want to know is there evidence Armstrong uses his Livestrong brand to personally enrich himself in ways that don't relate to reasonable reimbursement for expenses related to administration of the charity. I say that with the caveat that I do not agree with other persons in this thread who suggest the guy ought to get paid. I believe him being paid anything undermines the credibility of the charity.

This [url="http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/tdf2009/columns/story?columnist=ford_bonnie_d&id=4304698']interview[/url]with ESPN before the Tour.

Q: There is a school of thought that you're lining your pockets by putting exclusive content on Livestrong.com as opposed to Livestrong.org. What is your answer to that?

A: I haven't made a dime off Livestrong.com. Obviously the .org is the foundation, .com is a subsidiary of Demand Media. Both the foundation and myself have equity in Demand. But I think that the promotion of the .org kinds of things, the charity side of things on .com makes it the reason we do it. To me, .com is really about prevention and .org is about treatment and care and survivorship. I think if we paid closer attention to the .com side of things, ultimately a lot of people wouldn't need the .org side.

I do find it disingenuous though having the LAF and .com so closely linked. A poster earlier said that anyone not realising the difference between a .com & a .org is a moron - well in that case I am one and probably one of many, as I only learned of the difference on this site.

I do believe LA is genuine in his fight on cancer - but the close link between the two sites and the fact that he has equity in Demand Media rightly calls into question the need for better transparency.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

I do believe LA is genuine in his fight on cancer - but the close link between the two sites and the fact that he has equity in Demand Media rightly calls into question the need for better transparency.

Please continue. Because without "better transparency" the following calamity will transpire: ______________________________.

 

[scribe]

I haven't made a dime off Livestrong.com. Obviously the .org is the foundation, .com is a subsidiary of Demand Media. Both the foundation and myself have equity in Demand.

I find this to be curious. I wonder what the advantages are to have equity in that entity. It is very suggestive, on the outside, that he COULD benefit financially from the Demand Media/Livestrong relationship. In this case, I assume that his personal stake is dependent on how well Demand Media does in its 'across the board' enterprises, including Livestrong but not exclusively.

 

[BroDeal]

I find this to be curious. I wonder what the advantages are to have equity in that entity. It is very suggestive, on the outside, that he COULD benefit financially from the Demand Media/Livestrong relationship. In this case, I assume that his personal stake is dependent on how well Demand Media does in its 'across the board' enterprises, including Livestrong but not exclusively.

As I posted above, Demand Media had plans to go public. They were probably shelved in the latter half of 2008. The CEO was targeting a market cap of two plus billion dollars. A relatively small percentage of that still adds up to a large payout.

Armstrong is side stepping the issue by saying that he does not currently make any money from the .com.

 

[scribe]

As I posted above, Demand Media had plans to go public. They were probably shelved in the latter half of 2008. The CEO was targeting a market cap of two plus billion dollars. A relatively small percentage of that still adds up to a large payout.

Armstrong is side stepping the issue by saying that he does not currently make any money from the .com.

His offer of equity from Demand Media could tie into personal appearances, features, and advertising for some of their other enterprises. I would like some more complete information before deciding that he is doing something inappropriate regarding his charitable foundation. I am convinced that he understands the importance of not directly benefiting from the donated coffers of the foundation.

 

[GDVSSN]

I wonder why he chooses to name his company the same as his organization.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

I wonder why he chooses to name his company the same as his organization.

They're related. Like Armstrong said so succinctly in that quote, the org is for helping cancer victims, the company is for helping everyone live healthy lives; it's preventative. Either way it's all about "living strong". If you haven't check out livestrong.com, I suggest you do. They have some cool FREE stuff.

 

[Digger]

They're related. Like Armstrong said so succinctly in that quote, the org is for helping cancer victims, the company is for helping everyone live healthy lives; it's preventative. Either way it's all about "living strong". If you haven't check out livestrong.com, I suggest you do. They have some cool FREE stuff.

Cool ads too

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Cool ads too

Yep. Just like cyclingnews.COM

 

[Digger]

Yep. Just like cyclingnews.COM

Have cyclingnews links with cancer awareness?

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Have cyclingnews links with cancer awareness?

No, so what?

You act like there is something obviously wrong with such a link, yet you cannot explain what it is.

 

[Eva Maria]

No, so what?

You act like there is something obviously wrong with such a link, yet you cannot explain what it is.

The conflict of interest has been explained multiple times in this thread.