- Jul 13, 2012
- 594
- 0
- 0
A few of us have made mention of the Lance Armstrong Foundation, LiveStrong, in our postings recently and in the past. One of the principle defense people use regarding the USADA case against Lance is that he is a "good man". People then refer to Lance as a cancer survivor and an important person in the fight against cancer because of LiveStrong.
LiveStrong.org is also involved in cycling. It sponsors a European professional team. But is even more involved through the many cycling and other athletic events around the country that it supports (and through which it is supported).
In the beginning of this year Outside published a piece challenging the LiveStrong Froundation: http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoo...nce-armstrong/Its-Not-About-the-Lab-Rats.html This was also summarized in a "Must Read" by VN: http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/01/news/must-read-livestrong-facts-and-fiction_203023 In the coming weeks much more will be published questioning the role of LiveStrong in cancer and in cycling.
This thread is for discussing the relationship between LiveStrong.org and cycling in the context of the current doping scandal. It is not intended to discuss LiveStrong.com (though inevitably there might be some mingling because there are mingled through Lance and through business).
Do you believe that LiveStrong.org should continue to have a place in sponsoring cycling and using cycling events to raise money?
Do you believe that cyclists should support LiveStrong.org following the revelations of Armstrong's doping?
I have made my position on this clear already in The Clinic.
LiveStrong.org is also involved in cycling. It sponsors a European professional team. But is even more involved through the many cycling and other athletic events around the country that it supports (and through which it is supported).
In the beginning of this year Outside published a piece challenging the LiveStrong Froundation: http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoo...nce-armstrong/Its-Not-About-the-Lab-Rats.html This was also summarized in a "Must Read" by VN: http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/01/news/must-read-livestrong-facts-and-fiction_203023 In the coming weeks much more will be published questioning the role of LiveStrong in cancer and in cycling.
This thread is for discussing the relationship between LiveStrong.org and cycling in the context of the current doping scandal. It is not intended to discuss LiveStrong.com (though inevitably there might be some mingling because there are mingled through Lance and through business).
Do you believe that LiveStrong.org should continue to have a place in sponsoring cycling and using cycling events to raise money?
Do you believe that cyclists should support LiveStrong.org following the revelations of Armstrong's doping?
I have made my position on this clear already in The Clinic.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram