Livestrong did you know ...

[Ninety5rpm]

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

And each of those explanations has been refuted.

On the other hand, explanations of why it's not a problem stand uncontested.

 

[TheArbiter]

He is correct - in the hotbeds of the sport here in Europe, this is the view of the guy. They know what he is, the type of person he is, and how he has achieved his success.

I live in England and most cyclists I know respect Armstrong. How could you like cycling and not like Armstrong? It's really only the internet where the hatred reaches epic levels. But it's true that we do like to snear a bit. That's part of our culture; we tend to resent success rather than celebrate it. I don't think that means most people dislike him though.

 

[Eva Maria]

And each of those explanations has been refuted.

On the other hand, explanations of why it's not a problem stand uncontested.

They have been ignored, not refuted. You may have convinced yourself there is not an issue, but most do not agree.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

They have been ignored, not refuted. You may have convinced yourself there is not an issue, but most do not agree.

Most people who have posted here seem to think there is no problem.

Those who say they think there is a problem cannot explain what it is.

The fill-in-the-blank I created for Dr. Maserati remains unfilled.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Most people who have posted here seem to think there is no problem.

Those who say they think there is a problem cannot explain what it is.

The fill-in-the-blank I created for Dr. Maserati remains unfilled.

As I have previously wrote I have no major problem how he generates his wealth.
But why does he have to tie his LAF so closely to .com site?

Why not seperate the two and give the .com a different name?

 

[Eva Maria]

Most people who have posted here seem to think there is no problem.

Those who say they think there is a problem cannot explain what it is.

The fill-in-the-blank I created for Dr. Maserati remains unfilled.

It is pretty simple. Armstrong has leveraged the LAF brand to make money for himself. The brand was built as a non-profit, it did not have to pay taxes and used donations to build livestrong into a globally recognized brand. The .com site leverages that brand, that was built by donations, to build a for profit company.

In addition, if Armstrong's return is all about the non-profit why does he post his daily video's on the .com and drive traffic to the .com? Simple, the comeback is about putting money in Armstrong's pockets, charity is secondary.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

As I have previously wrote I have no major problem how he generates his wealth.
But why does he have to tie his LAF so closely to .com site?

Why not seperate the two and give the .com a different name?

Both provide good services for the public at large. One is "non profit", the other is "for profit". Both do better under the "livestrong" umbrella. It's all good. Where is the bad?

Why separate the two? Why not leverage one off the other?

What's wrong with tying LAF so closely to the .com site?

 

[Ninety5rpm]

It is pretty simple. Armstrong has leveraged the LAF brand to make money for himself. The brand was built as a non-profit, it did not have to pay taxes and used donations to build livestrong into a globally recognized brand. The .com site leverages that brand, that was built by donations, to build a for profit company.

You say this as if there is something obviously wrong with something in there. I don't see it.

In addition, if Armstrong's return is all about the non-profit why does he post his daily video's on the .com and drive traffic to the .com? Simple, the comeback is about putting money in Armstrong's pockets, charity is secondary.

Who said his return is all about non-profit?
That's just a big part of it, not all of it.
He also wants to have fun racing, make money, grow the livestrong business that provides "living strong" services to all as well as the non-profit that provides "living strong" services to cancer victims, etc.

 

[TheArbiter]

Simple, the comeback is about putting money in Armstrong's pockets, charity is secondary.

He doesn't need the money so that is obviously not it. He has, however, taken his charity to a new level by touring the world. He's also been an inspiration for those who worry about losing it as they get older.

Good old Armstrong. No wonder he is the most famous cyclist in the world.

 

[Eva Maria]

You say this as if there is something obviously wrong with something in there. I don't see it.

Many others do

Who said his return is all about non-profit?

Lance

 

[Digger]

I live in England and most cyclists I know respect Armstrong. How could you like cycling and not like Armstrong? It's really only the internet where the hatred reaches epic levels. But it's true that we do like to snear a bit. That's part of our culture; we tend to resent success rather than celebrate it. I don't think that means most people dislike him though.

ANY TRUE cycling fan I know thinks the opposite. These include writers, journalists and pros...

 

[Digger]

And each of those explanations has been refuted.

In your eyes.

 

[Digger]

You say this as if there is something obviously wrong with something in there. I don't see it.

Your morals, your business.

 

[LugHugger]

I live in England and most cyclists I know respect Armstrong. How could you like cycling and not like Armstrong? It's really only the internet where the hatred reaches epic levels. But it's true that we do like to snear a bit. That's part of our culture; we tend to resent success rather than celebrate it. I don't think that means most people dislike him though.

Really? That is not my experience of 'most cyclists' in England. In fact, quite the opposite. And it's not true that we resent success. We resent brazen, misplaced arrogance and hypocrisy. Most who follow pro cycling grudgingly respect his Tour record but actively dislike the man and his 'charitable' return.

 

[TheArbiter]

Really? That is not my experience of 'most cyclists' in England. In fact, quite the opposite. And it's not true that we resent success. We resent brazen, misplaced arrogance and hypocrisy. Most who follow pro cycling grudgingly respect his Tour record but actively dislike the man and his 'charitable' return.

No it's mainly internet loons. Most ordinary cyclists hugely respect the old great, even if they like to talk him down a bit from time to time for cultural reasons.

 

[LugHugger]

No it's mainly internet loons. Most ordinary cyclists hugely respect the old great, even if they like to talk him down a bit from time to time.

Really? OK. Quick straw poll of 6 cyclists in the room who have just got back from riding 80 miles. Results? "He's a w*nker" x 4 "F*cking c*ck" x 2

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Okay, for those of you who think there is something obviously wrong with Lance Armstrong using the same Livestrong brand for his LAF non-profit and for his livestrong.com for-profit business, but can't explain it, what do you think of the use of the McDonald's name for both the McDonald's for-profit chain and for the Ronald McDonald House charity?

Do you see this as the same problem? Or not? If not, what's the difference?

To be clear, I'm testing my hypothesis that the objection to using the Livestrong brand for both non-profit and for-profit organizations really amounts to nit picking rationalization that is actually the manifestation of an irrational and inexplicable dislike for the man.

Case in point:

"He's a w*nker" x 4 "F*cking c*ck" x 2

 

[LugHugger]

Okay, for those of you who think there is something obviously wrong with Lance Armstrong using the same Livestrong brand for his LAF non-profit and for his livestrong.com for-profit business, but can't explain it, what do you think of the use of the McDonald's name for both the McDonald's for-profit chain and for the Ronald McDonald House charity?

Do you see this as the same problem? Or not? If not, what's the difference?

To be clear, I'm testing my hypothesis that the objection to using the Livestrong brand for both non-profit and for-profit organizations really amounts to nit picking rationalization that is actually the manifestation of an irrational and inexplicable dislike for the man.

Case in point:

Just a second, I haven't posted any objection to the LAF/.com finances. I was simply refuting a gross generalisation that 'most cyclists' in the UK think that the sun shines out of the man's behind.

I do not deny that I am not a fan of the man but I do grudgingly respect his Tour achievements -boring though they may have been.

 

[Eva Maria]

Okay, for those of you who think there is something obviously wrong with Lance Armstrong using the same Livestrong brand for his LAF non-profit and for his livestrong.com for-profit business, but can't explain it, what do you think of the use of the McDonald's name for both the McDonald's for-profit chain and for the Ronald McDonald House charity?

Do you see this as the same problem? Or not? If not, what's the difference?

To be clear, I'm testing my hypothesis that the objection to using the Livestrong brand for both non-profit and for-profit organizations really amounts to nit picking rationalization that is actually the manifestation of an irrational and inexplicable dislike for the man.

Case in point:

You really can't see the difference?

For decades McDonald's built a global brand. They decided to leverage this commercial brand to benefit the parents of critically ill children by starting a charity that aids them.

Armstrong did the exact opposite. He leveraged a non profit brand, that was built by donations, for a for profit entity that benefits him.

Simple

 

[gjdavis60]

As I have previously wrote I have no major problem how he generates his wealth.
But why does he have to tie his LAF so closely to .com site?

Why not seperate the two and give the .com a different name?

I think expanding the Livestrong brand and leveraging the capital available in the for-profit sector is a pretty savvy move. The for-profit venture not only generates additional revenue for the LAF beyond what is possible within the strict confines of cancer advocacy and traditional fund raising activities, but it also exposes a much wider audience to the LAF message through the lifestyle site and related media campaigns that may evolve out of this venture. Again, I think this is a brilliant stroke of marketing from the perspective of the charity.

The days of effectively funding philanthropic causes with bake sales, tag days, direct mail, and collection jars are long past. This represents some very progressive "out of the box" thinking.

 

[Eva Maria]

I think expanding the Livestrong brand and leveraging the capital available in the for-profit sector is a pretty savvy move. The for-profit venture not only generates additional revenue for the LAF beyond what is possible within the strict confines of cancer advocacy and traditional fund raising activities, but it also exposes a much wider audience to the LAF message through the lifestyle site and related media campaigns that may evolve out of this venture. Again, I think this is a brilliant stroke of marketing from the perspective of the charity.

The days of effectively funding philanthropic causes with bake sales, tag days, direct mail, and collection jars are long past. This represents some very progressive "out of the box" thinking.

You are assuming LAF gets money from the .com. It has never been disclosed what their cut is, in fact the answer to that question has been conspiculously avoided. If it was anything more then a token for the use of their brand it would be trumpeted, but it isn't.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

You really can't see the difference?

For decades McDonald's built a global brand. They decided to leverage this commercial brand to benefit the parents of critically ill children by starting a charity that aids them.

Armstrong did the exact opposite. He leveraged a non profit brand, that was built by donations, for a for profit entity that benefits him.

Simple

In both cases one hand washes the other. So for you it matters which existed first? Yeah, that's a difference, but is it a difference that matters? I really don't understand why.

Expanding Livestrong from being only a non-profit focusing on helping cancer victims into also being a for-profit service org that helps anyone who chooses to live a healthy preventative lifestyle simply increases exposure to LAF. It's not like Livestrong exists to fund the legal defenses of child-molesting priests. Another organization (a non-profit, by the way) does that...

I haven't seen the numbers, but I'm guessing the non-profit is doing better since the for-profit was launched.

I just don't see the harm. It's all good.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I think expanding the Livestrong brand and leveraging the capital available in the for-profit sector is a pretty savvy move. The for-profit venture not only generates additional revenue for the LAF beyond what is possible within the strict confines of cancer advocacy and traditional fund raising activities, but it also exposes a much wider audience to the LAF message through the lifestyle site and related media campaigns that may evolve out of this venture. Again, I think this is a brilliant stroke of marketing from the perspective of the charity.

The days of effectively funding philanthropic causes with bake sales, tag days, direct mail, and collection jars are long past. This represents some very progressive "out of the box" thinking.

....I have often collected money for local causes and indeed my own cycling club, however I have never received "equity" for doing so.

 

[Eva Maria]

In both cases one hand washes the other. So for you it matters which existed first? Yeah, that's a difference, but is it a difference that matters? I really don't understand why.

It is a HUGE difference. You chose to not see it.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

It is a HUGE difference. You chose to not see it.

And you choose to see it.

I'm asking you to explain what you see. Spell it out. What moral rule of yours is being broken here?