Livestrong lobbyist working for Lance the doper

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Race Radio said:
"For the last two years, we've focused on the mission that Lance laid out for us," a spokeswoman for the foundation said. "That's serving cancer survivors,"
Um, what were you doing for the previous 10 years?
Ouch. Nice catch.

Peddling Squares has an interesting point.

Otherwise, BroDeal has it square. Lance has got baggage that Politicians don't need.

In addition, this is another example of sucking Floyd's wheel.

Landis has already helped Lance out here with his explicit letter-writing campaign and his picture-taking sessions to overcome the abuse of athletes doped to the gills while they race in Frants. Politics may have a short memory, but Politicians may not.

Besides, at least Landis showed up himself. Getting your picture taken with a lobbyist who might own a bicycle isn't the same thing. And, Landis is a lot nicer guy than Lance.

Dave.
 

Bill Murray

BANNED
Jul 12, 2012
26
0
0
It's a difficult one. On the one hand I despise Armstrong and everything he stands for. I really want to kick his teeth in. But i can also see that it's perfectly reasonable for the charity to want to protect their programs for victims and will feel it necessary to lobby for their brand. If we were working with cancer victims all the time, we might want to put them before Armstrong too, so I can't blame them for standing up for cancer victims. As much as I hate Armstrong with every fibre in my body, I do have to credit him with doing a great amount for cancer victims, and I suppose the charity workers will feel that sense of gratitude to him for making it possible through his sporting celebrity and achievements. It's tough.
 
Bill Murray said:
It's a difficult one. On the one hand I despise Armstrong and everything he stands for. I really want to kick his teeth in. But i can also see that it's perfectly reasonable for the charity to want to protect their programs for victims and will feel it necessary to lobby for their brand. If we were working with cancer victims all the time, we might want to put them before Armstrong too, so I can't blame them for standing up for cancer victims. As much as I hate Armstrong with every fibre in my body, I do have to credit him with doing a great amount for cancer victims, and I suppose the charity workers will feel that sense of gratitude to him for making it possible through his sporting celebrity and achievements. It's tough.
Bill love your work but first things first.

Cancer suffers are not victims - got it? Those who have the disease never see themselves as victims. Ever. Nor should you. Period.

Such a foolish thing to say.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
Bill Murray said:
It's a difficult one. On the one hand I despise Armstrong and everything he stands for. I really want to kick his teeth in. But i can also see that it's perfectly reasonable for the charity to want to protect their programs for victims and will feel it necessary to lobby for their brand. If we were working with cancer victims all the time, we might want to put them before Armstrong too, so I can't blame them for standing up for cancer victims. As much as I hate Armstrong with every fibre in my body, I do have to credit him with doing a great amount for cancer victims, and I suppose the charity workers will feel that sense of gratitude to him for making it possible through his sporting celebrity and achievements. It's tough.
I would feel cheated and used. Like the only thing that really mattered about my work was the cover it provided for his doping.
 

Bill Murray

BANNED
Jul 12, 2012
26
0
0
thehog said:
Bill love your work but first things first.

Cancer suffers are not victims - got it? Those who have the disease never see themselves as victims. Ever. Nor should you. Period.

Such a foolish thing to say.
Sorry, I am not down with the correct Livestong rhetoric.
 
Jul 12, 2012
649
0
0
Bill Murray said:
It's a difficult one. On the one hand I despise Armstrong and everything he stands for. I really want to kick his teeth in. But i can also see that it's perfectly reasonable for the charity to want to protect their programs for victims and will feel it necessary to lobby for their brand. If we were working with cancer victims all the time, we might want to put them before Armstrong too, so I can't blame them for standing up for cancer victims. As much as I hate Armstrong with every fibre in my body, I do have to credit him with doing a great amount for cancer victims, and I suppose the charity workers will feel that sense of gratitude to him for making it possible through his sporting celebrity and achievements. It's tough.
Since Lance Armstrong may be guilty of criminal activity beyond USADA violations, lobbying actions on his behalf by Livestrong is not only inappropriate and a conflict of interest, but it may even be illegal.

Regardless, given that The National Cancer Institute's (NCI) budget is $4.9 billion per year and other federal agencies, state and local governments, voluntary organizations, private institutions, and industry spend substantial amounts of money on cancer-related research, support and advocacy, one must question the real effect of Livestrong's under $40 million budget, which is less than 1/100 of NCI's budget alone.

Keep in mind by father died of cancer and I mean no disrespect to cancer survivors.
 

Bill Murray

BANNED
Jul 12, 2012
26
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
I would feel cheated and used. Like the only thing that really mattered about my work was the cover it provided for his doping.
Armstrong is an integral part of the Livestrong brand. If he goes down, so does the charity, so those working for cancer victims, er, I mean cancer livestrongs, will really want to continue their work.

Also we forget that, though we hate Armstrong, most of the supporters of the charity donate precisely because he is linked to it, and will be expecting Livestrong to help him.
 
Bill Murray said:
Armstrong is an integral part of the Livestrong brand. If he goes down, so does the charity, so those working for cancer victims, er, I mean cancer livestrongs, will really want to continue their work.

Also we forget that, though we hate Armstrong, most of the supporters of the charity donate precisely because he is linked to it, and will be expecting Livestrong to help him.
Bill, any ideas why the lobbyist for Livestrong was visiting the a Congressman on the appropriations committee? Does the appropriations committee have any relation to the USADA?

I have relatives that have died of cancer, too, and a wife that has had breast and thyroid cancer. She's never had the slightest bit of contact with Livestrong. She was treated for Thyroid cancer last year.

A spokeswoman for the Lance Armstrong Foundation called the description of the lobbyist's visit "inaccurate," and said the charity was active on Capitol Hill last week. The purpose of the visit, she said, may have been misconstrued by Mr. Serrano's office, because the topic of USADA may have come up in passing. "All of our lobbying is focused on the well being and access to care that our constituents rely on," she said.
 
Bill Murray said:
Armstrong is an integral part of the Livestrong brand. If he goes down, so does the charity, so those working for cancer victims, er, I mean cancer livestrongs, will really want to continue their work.

Also we forget that, though we hate Armstrong, most of the supporters of the charity donate precisely because he is linked to it, and will be expecting Livestrong to help him.
Good point.

There are going to be some major morale problems. It is inconceivable that every employee of Livestrong is a sock puppet. There have to be at least a few that believe in the Livestrong cause itself. Maybe even a few that are not so blind to Lance.

Possible, even if marginally probable.

Dave.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
Bill Murray said:
Armstrong is an integral part of the Livestrong brand. If he goes down, so does the charity, so those working for cancer victims, er, I mean cancer livestrongs, will really want to continue their work.

Also we forget that, though we hate Armstrong, most of the supporters of the charity donate precisely because he is linked to it, and will be expecting Livestrong to help him.
I don't believe that. If he goes down, they re-name, re-group, and move forward. I was working with cancer charities long before Lance got cancer, and even then, people LOVED to give money for cancer charities. One of the reasons I so passionately detest things like this is because of the work I did with kids with cancer. I don't find that it is necessary to lie to them and use their images as cover for Lance's doping. I don't think that is a necessary part of helping them at all. Sorry.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
Livestrong foundation's job is to make Lance an icon.
Livestrong incorporated's job is to profit off Lance's icon status.

Shameless pig.
 

Bill Murray

BANNED
Jul 12, 2012
26
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
I don't believe that. If he goes down, they re-name, re-group, and move forward. I was working with cancer charities long before Lance got cancer, and even then, people LOVED to give money for cancer charities. One of the reasons I so passionately detest things like this is because of the work I did with kids with cancer. I don't find that it is necessary to lie to them and use their images as cover for Lance's doping. I don't think that is a necessary part of helping them at all. Sorry.
But people working for THIS charity obviously got inspired by Lance Armstrong and what this charity does. It's understandable to me they feel a sense of debt to him and want to continue their good works.
 

Bill Murray

BANNED
Jul 12, 2012
26
0
0
ggusta said:
Bill, any ideas why the lobbyist for Livestrong was visiting the a Congressman on the appropriations committee? Does the appropriations committee have any relation to the USADA?
They do have joint programs with governmnents around the world where they match each other's funding. Maybe this could be something to do with it?

I have relatives that have died of cancer, too, and a wife that has had breast and thyroid cancer. She's never had the slightest bit of contact with Livestrong. She was treated for Thyroid cancer last year.
Me too, but I guess they can't help everybody.
 
Bill Murray said:
But people working for THIS charity obviously got inspired by Lance Armstrong and what this charity does. It's understandable to me they fill a sense of debt to him and want to continue their good works.
I am curious and maybe you can help, because this is really intriguing to me. Why would people rather defend what they know is a fraud than accept the truth? This baffles me. The sense of debt you mention. What for? He is a liar and a cheat. A debt? For what? They know he would never do anything for them if they didn't defend him at all costs. Are they too intimidated to turn? How Orwellian.
 
Aug 3, 2010
843
0
0
Bill Murray said:
But people working for THIS charity obviously got inspired by Lance Armstrong and what this charity does. It's understandable to me they fill a sense of debt to him and want to continue their good works.
Sincere ignorance is dangerous.
 
Bill Murray said:
They do have joint programs with governmnents around the world where they match each other's funding. Maybe this could be something to do with it?



Me too, but I guess they can't help everybody.
So Livestrong gets government funding?
 

Bill Murray

BANNED
Jul 12, 2012
26
0
0
ggusta said:
I am curious and maybe you can help, because this is really intriguing to me. Why would people rather defend what they know is a fraud than accept the truth? This baffles me. The sense of debt you mention. What for? He is a liar and a cheat. A debt? For what? They know he would never do anything for them if they didn't defend him at all costs. Are they too intimidated to turn? How Orwellian.
Well firstly they see their mission to protect their cancer victim programs, and taking Armstrong down would seriously hurt of cripple them.

Secondly, to them, Armstrong didn't have to get involved in a cancer charity. He could have not bothered or done something else, so they feel a sense of apreciation that he did bother.

Thirdly, people can have the same information but have a different interpretation of what the facts mean. CBS did a poll that showed the majority of Americans already think that Armstrong doped, but don't seem to think he is a fraud as such. Maybe they see it in the context of pro cycling's reputation and weigh it against charity factors. It's complex. I think he will always be a divisive character that has a large degree of support.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
Bill Murray said:
Armstrong is an integral part of the Livestrong brand. If he goes down, so does the charity, so those working for cancer victims, er, I mean cancer livestrongs, will really want to continue their work.

Also we forget that, though we hate Armstrong, most of the supporters of the charity donate precisely because he is linked to it, and will be expecting Livestrong to help him.
Yea, because they aren't in it for the PR boost and power. (well, some of them, but that is another story) The spots to work with the organization I worked with had a waiting line for every spot that came open. This was before Lance got cancer and everyone became aware of the disease, so yea, I think they just might keep working for an organization that helps people with cancer...:rolleyes:

EDIT: But good to know that people only do good things because of their hero worship. I will file that away for when I reveal that I'm Batman.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
MarkvW said:
Livestrong foundation's job is to make Lance an icon.
Livestrong incorporated's job is to profit off Lance's icon status.

Shameless pig.
Is there a retweet button around here somewhere???
 
Man, you read down into that article and Livestrong looks like it's an organization that pretty much exists to protect his reputation. And enters into a lot of questionable relationships.

He seems quite open and at ease about the type of narcissistic character he is. Very interesting. Sick. But interesting.

I found the statement written ostensibly by Lance for Lance and read by a puppet to be especially creepy:
In two separate statements last month, the foundation's president, Doug Ulman, lashed out against USADA. "We struggle to understand the leadership choices and lack of openness" of USADA, he said in both statements, questioning its integrity and oversight. "Our hearts go out Lance and his family as they face what can only be a very frustrating and difficult time," he said.
 

Bill Murray

BANNED
Jul 12, 2012
26
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
Yea, because they aren't in it for the PR boost and power. (well, some of them, but that is another story) The spots to work with the organization I worked with had a waiting line for every spot that came open. This was before Lance got cancer and everyone became aware of the disease, so yea, I think they just might keep working for an organization that helps people with cancer...:rolleyes:
I think we need to be above reproach if we are to critisize Armstrong for shameless behavior, otherwise we are no different to what we complain about. Livestrong do directly help people with cancer and their families. They may not have helped a relative of ours, but they do help cancer victims nonetheless. It's understandable that people in those charities are grateful, even though we see doping in the tour de france as a much more important.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
E The Clinic 11

ASK THE COMMUNITY