Official Lance Armstrong thread

[Greg Johnson]

It stops here gents. This thread has a title - discussion within should relate to that topic. I've no qualms over suspending accounts if this petty back and forth continues.

Cheers
Greg Johnson

 

[Anonymous]

By the way, just to close the loop, and since my memory isn't what it used to be, my 4th post on this forum, which you felt necessary to look up, was in response to people accusing Astana of doping since they arrived late and missed the sign in. I'd say that was a ludicrous accusation, so ridiculing those who put it forward was something that I don't find hypocritical in any way whatsoever.

Look, I am what I am. I never pretend to be "objective" about Mr Armstrong. I also never pretend I am not inflammatory and rude. If fact, you can find plenty of times when I have admitted I am an *** without flinching. I don't have a problem with my behavior.

You on the other hand pretend to be this impartial observer, who merely reflects a moderate view of subjects posted and a dispassionate attitude towards people who disagree with you. That my friend makes you either willfully dishonest, or completely incapable of enough introspection to be proffering opinions about the attitudes and psyche of others. I would suggest that either way, the next time you pontificate about the motives and behavior of others, write your name at the top and read it a few times for a clue as to how you should ACT if you really want to be what you claim to be.

Edit to Greg: I was posting this while you posted yours. I didn't do it in violation of what you just posted.

 

[dgodave]

why not...

LA rode much more intelligently today. He rode the final climb at his own pace and paid little attention to the accellerations he cannot match. A much different approach than the way he has always ridden in the past. He even rejoined the attacking riders fairly easy by doing this. (There was a slowing when Schleck realised he couldn't shake AC but that's also a pattern likely to continue)

If he is going to limit his losses in the mtns and hold on to a podium position he will have to continue in this way. At his own rhythm. Riding the tour as a dominant force is different than as one of many fairly even contenders fighting for the podium.

Exactly. He's making the best of clearly diminished abilities. I find it fascinating.
.

 

[SpeedWay]

Not with Amster and some of these other tossers it isn't. All they do is complain about other posters and their opinions. By pure coincidence, I am sure, all those they complain about are not Armstrong fans.

By pure coincidence, I am sure, you're wrong once again. All those we complain about are haters like you. One day when you grow up you'll realize there's a big difference between disliking and hating. Until then, you and yours will continue to wander around in the darkness thinking you see something that isn't there. Continue on with your fanboy rant, but you truly are clueless.

 

[frizzlefry]

Man it got awful quiet in here.

 

[frizzlefry]

Team Nike Livestrong is coming folks.

 

[colwildcat]

Team Nike Livestrong is coming folks.

I'll say this. I will have a large problem if Livestrong is a sponsor of a team, and by that, I mean the LAF, of which Livestrong is the brand. Charity dollars should absolutely not be used to sponsor a sporting team, unless there is a mechanism for said team to return many times the amount given.

 

[klodifan]

That's becasue the little boys were sent to their appropriate corners.

Man it got awful quiet in here.

 

[frizzlefry]

I'll say this. I will have a large problem if Livestrong is a sponsor of a team, and by that, I mean the LAF, of which Livestrong is the brand. Charity dollars should absolutely not be used to sponsor a sporting team, unless there is a mechanism for said team to return many times the amount given.

I dont know, I am sure there is some legal way to get it on there.
Maybe it will just be Team Nike.

 

[RigelKent]

I'll say this. I will have a large problem if Livestrong is a sponsor of a team, and by that, I mean the LAF, of which Livestrong is the brand. Charity dollars should absolutely not be used to sponsor a sporting team, unless there is a mechanism for said team to return many times the amount given.

From the Livestrong.com website:
While LIVESTRONG.ORG remains a nonprofit, LIVESTRONG.COM is a for-profit that derives its revenue from advertising and member subscriptions.
Seems Livestrong is the brand for lots of things . . .

 

[Anonymous]

Now, back to Mr Armstrong. The day he becomes humble and honest enough to publicly apologize to Betsy Andreau, Filippo Simeoni, and Christophe Bassons is the day I will consider him anything more than than a lying bully with few morally redeeming qualities.

Its funny, all three of those people were honest in my opinion, but I have a casual acquaintance with Betsy Andreau, and from that and having read and listened to her on may occasions I can tell you that the reason she testified that Lance admitted to using EPO and other drugs is because she made a moral decision to tell the truth. She was not going to lie under oath because of her spiritual and moral beliefs. Say what you will, but I will take the word of a person such as her any day over someone such as Mr Armstrong.

Way too many times, people here have said that she is a liar, and that nobody has backed up her and Frankie's account of that day in the hospital. Funny thing is that is completely ignorant of reality. But you guys keep deluding yourselves. I understand, I was once just like you. Then I woke up to the reality of what happened.

 

[Cobber]

I dont know, I am sure there is some legal way to get it on there.
Maybe it will just be Team Nike.

Legality and morality often do not go hand-in-hand.

 

[Greg Johnson]

I'll say this. I will have a large problem if Livestrong is a sponsor of a team, and by that, I mean the LAF, of which Livestrong is the brand. Charity dollars should absolutely not be used to sponsor a sporting team, unless there is a mechanism for said team to return many times the amount given.

This one is a big bag of worms. It can be argued that increasing awareness is the foundation's purpose and therefore such a deal would be perfectly reasonable, just as it could be argued that it's a complete and utter waste of money donated by people in the good faith, believing it would be utalised differently.

I have my personal views, and I'm going to keep them that way. But yes, that's a topic where much debate can be had and at the end of the day, there's no right or wrong. It comes down to one's own position.

Cheers
Greg Johnson

 

[Anonymous]

Legality and morality often do not go hand-in-hand.

As has always been perfectly clear with Mr Armstrong.

 

[lean mean &green]

I'll say this. I will have a large problem if Livestrong is a sponsor of a team, and by that, I mean the LAF, of which Livestrong is the brand. Charity dollars should absolutely not be used to sponsor a sporting team, unless there is a mechanism for said team to return many times the amount given.

this is tricky. every charity must have an advertising/marketing budget which is essentially what a cycling team is. some say cycling is a particularly good investment, that your money goes further than with more conventional means. not sure how i feel about it, feels like a conflict of interest.

 

[colwildcat]

From the Livestrong.com website:
While LIVESTRONG.ORG remains a nonprofit, LIVESTRONG.COM is a for-profit that derives its revenue from advertising and member subscriptions.
Seems Livestrong is the brand for lots of things . . .

Very true. There needs to be some serious work on their side to separate Lance's endorsement deals with Nike, the Livestrong BRAND, and the LAF, all of which are separate yet are intimately intertwined.

I choose to not be cynical about his charity, partially because the LAF helped my father as he died from cancer. I have donated an absolute ton of money to the charity, raised money, volunteered, and put in time. That is not about the man himself, it's about the cause, of which I fully believe in.

Whether he doped, chased down Simeoni for immoral reasons, etc, I'll choose to stop participating discussions on, but I absolutely refuse to be so cynical that I question his charity or his goals related to cancer prevention. But, I've looked in the man's eyes as he acknowledged the fundraising I did to help. Doubt many here have had that experience.

 

[Anonymous]

Very true. There needs to be some serious work on their side to separate Lance's endorsement deals with Nike, the Livestrong BRAND, and the LAF, all of which are separate yet are intimately intertwined.

I choose to not be cynical about his charity, partially because the LAF helped my father as he died from cancer. I have donated an absolute ton of money to the charity, raised money, volunteered, and put in time. That is not about the man himself, it's about the cause, of which I fully believe in.

Whether he doped, chased down Simeoni for immoral reasons, etc, I'll choose to stop participating discussions on, but I absolutely refuse to be so cynical that I question his charity or his goals related to cancer prevention. But, I've looked in the man's eyes as he acknowledged the fundraising I did to help. Doubt many here have had that experience.

While I am not a huge fan of he or his charity, I can respect your opinion based you YOUR experience. But that does not mean I have to base my opinion or express said opinion based on YOUR experience.

I have done more work with people with cancer than most people you will meet. I also went through my mother's cancer with her. I have known LOTS of people who did work for cancer charities and cancer patients who were complete assholes. Having a disease and/or doing work for a charity does not mean you are a nice person. I am sure there are people in this world who would use me as an example of such.

In the case of Mr Armstrong, I find his defects to far outweigh his benefit to mankind. And that is MY opinion.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Team Nike Livestrong is coming folks.

Is it?? I think people are jumping the gun on this one.

I fully expect a new title sponsor - most likely an American company - which will pay the chunk of the sponsorship. Then we would have the smaller partners, Trek, Nike maybe Subaru. I think the Livestrong brand will be the smallest part of any new deal. But expect a lot of 'black & yellow' on the team kit

 

[klodifan]

Very true. There needs to be some serious work on their side to separate Lance's endorsement deals with Nike, the Livestrong BRAND, and the LAF, all of which are separate yet are intimately intertwined.

I choose to not be cynical about his charity, partially because the LAF helped my father as he died from cancer. I have donated an absolute ton of money to the charity, raised money, volunteered, and put in time. That is not about the man himself, it's about the cause, of which I fully believe in.

Whether he doped, chased down Simeoni for immoral reasons, etc, I'll choose to stop participating discussions on, but I absolutely refuse to be so cynical that I question his charity or his goals related to cancer prevention. But, I've looked in the man's eyes as he acknowledged the fundraising I did to help. Doubt many here have had that experience.

Whether one has had a personal interaction with LA is irrelevant when debating the ethics of a Livestrong team. Moral relativism is an idea that has contributed to the corruption of modern society. There is a right and a wrong in every situation. When personal self interest is influenced by compromised agenda's why have convictions? Why not be honest and say that integrity and truth are grand ideas that I support unless I need help. In that case, those ideas don't matter. What matters is what benefits me.

 

[Greg Johnson]

From the Livestrong.com website:
While LIVESTRONG.ORG remains a nonprofit, LIVESTRONG.COM is a for-profit that derives its revenue from advertising and member subscriptions.
Seems Livestrong is the brand for lots of things . . .

One can't help but wonder how strategic this is. Don't get me wrong, Lance has always been very clear to say 'this one is for profit, this one isn't' in conferences I've attended - but the easiest way ensure there's no crossed wires is to give them a brutally obvious point of different - both being named Livestrong is not a point of difference.

Intentional or not? I don't have the answer.

Cheers
Greg Johnson

 

[Anonymous]

Whether one has had a personal interaction with LA is irrelevant when debating the ethics of a Livestrong team. Moral relativism is an idea that has contributed to the corruption of modern society. There is a right and a wrong in every situation. When personal self interest is influenced by compromised agenda's why have convictions? Why not be honest and say that integrity and truth are grand ideas that I support unless I need help. In that case, those ideas don't matter. What matters is what benefits me.

Oh no you didin' go all college on us.

The problem are the various an sundry ideas of what is and is not "moral." Thought I do agree with your basic premise based on MY interpretation of what is and is not "moral." I just am not sure how many others would agree with me.

 

[mherm79]

Whether he doped, chased down Simeoni for immoral reasons, etc, I'll choose to stop participating discussions on, but I absolutely refuse to be so cynical that I question his charity or his goals related to cancer prevention. But, I've looked in the man's eyes as he acknowledged the fundraising I did to help. Doubt many here have had that experience.

i agree. the motivates aren't the important thing it's whether or not he has helped others directly or in-directly.
running the website and foundations costs money and therefore a % of the money donated will need to pay for these things. that is no different to any other not for profit organisation.

has he raised awareness or helped others? you could probably answer that by looking at how many of his peers in the peleton are wearing livestrong bands....

 

[Anonymous]

One can't help but wonder how strategic this is. Don't get me wrong, Lance has always been very clear to say 'this one is for profit, this one isn't' in conferences I've attended - but the easiest way ensure there's no crossed wires is to give them a brutally obvious point of different - both being named Livestrong is not a point of difference.

Intentional or not? I don't have the answer.

Cheers
Greg Johnson

Well, we know the egg came before the chicken on that one, and I have to say that when the chicken hatched, my opinion is that it shouldn't have been named egg.com.

 

[RigelKent]

Klodifan, I think absolutism is the downfall of our society. While I agree there is a right and a wrong, they can only be known with ALL the data. Until then, we're just assuming and making decisions based on our opinions, which is the most relative way of all.

Which leads to the multiple Livestrongs. Greg, you couldn't have said it better. I'd likewise be more comfortable if the Tour was about winning the Tour and cancer was about cancer. I've got no problems with Lance being a competitive SOB. But to try to say I'm being an SOB to fight cancer seems pretty disconnected.

The man is flawed (he's human, I guess). The racing is finally good. Cancer sucks. We mix those up we get lost really quick.

 

[Cobber]

One can't help but wonder how strategic this is. Don't get me wrong, Lance has always been very clear to say 'this one is for profit, this one isn't' in conferences I've attended - but the easiest way ensure there's no crossed wires is to give them a brutally obvious point of different - both being named Livestrong is not a point of difference.

+1.... The non-profit came first, if I am not mistaken. It seems likely that the for-profit was named in order to benefit from the non-profits name. Business wise, that makes perfect sence, but personally, I think that is a little disingenuous at best and immoral at worst.