Official Lance Armstrong thread

[RigelKent]

+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.

Public radio stations around the country have followed a model whereby they have for profit arms that funnel money to the not for profit arms. However they keep the identities of the organizations very separate. They've been attacked pretty hard for that, because it seemed disingenuous to some.

 

[Anonymous]

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....

But if all they did was buy a band, other than the dollar, what actual good did they do individually. Who says that they wouldn't have given a dollar to an existing charity? Who says that more people know about cancer now than before Armstrong contracted testicular cancer? I for one don't believe that there was a lack of funding for cancer charities before the LAF. I knew of hundreds of organizations, and most people I knew had heard of cancer prior to Mr Armstrong contracting testicular cancer.

I also will relate this, the two biggest donations that were given to the organization for whom I worked were ANONYMOUS. I have a problem with associating your reputation (and relying on it directing public opinion of you as a person) with the fact that you had cancer and are rich enough to give some money and start a foundation. It places you in the position of being "untouchable" because who can be against cancer? He has so tied himself to cancer, that he is able to control public discourse about HIM PERSONALLY because of that. Just look at the Lance Armstrong/Nike/Livestrong commercial. It is about showing that HE is good and not a doper, or fraud, or arrogant. It sickens me in all honesty.

 

[colwildcat]

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.

My statement made no judgements on whether or not he is an a-hole. I can understand those who believe he doped, believe he's a fraud, etc. But, I question those who believe that his interest in helping those with cancer is somehow fake or dishonest.

I've said many times. I'll concede that he doped. But, I don't believe he's doping today and I believe he has nothing but the best intentions with his charity.

Having said that, they have some areas to work through to make a team work that has anything to do with him or with the LAF.

 

[dgodave]

He's like Voldemort and Sauron molded into one superbeing and stuffed into lycra. I'll bet he hangs on to the team car too.
.

 

[klodifan]

...It places you in the position of being "untouchable" because who can be against cancer? He has so tied himself to cancer, that he is able to control public discourse about HIM PERSONALLY because of that...

Well said. LA made a deliberate decision to market his cancer struggles long ago to his benefit above all others.

 

[lean mean &green]

".com" means commercial

".org" means an organization or not for profit

this is true of domain names across the board, who wants to guess what ".edu" or ".gov" means?

livestrong.com
provides tools and a sense of community for people who want to live a more healthy active lifestyle

livestrong.org
home for LAF, the goal of which is to raise money and awareness, connect sufferers to a support system, and aid in finding cancer cures

I haven't exactly bookmarked either or even clicked passed the home page but I don't find the names that confusing. It's not evidence of a grand conspiracy or anything.

It seems very likely that the team will not be titled Livestrong. That's just what we've latched onto in the forum b/c we don't know what else to call it...seems a little crazy to even argue about

Side question:
Since right and wrong is clearly defined in every situation what do I do when the girlfriend asks me if the pants she is wearing make her **** look big?

 

[RigelKent]

Side question:
Since right and wrong is clearly defined in every situation what do I do when the girlfriend asks me if the pants she is wearing make her **** look big?

Easy. You say "No, all the fat on your hips is what makes it look big."

 

[elapid]

".com" means commercial

".org" means an organization or not for profit

this is true of domain names across the board, who wants to guess what ".edu" or ".gov" means?

This is incorrect. When buying a website name, you have the option of choosing ".com", ".org" or ".net", amongst others. These do not have any particular meaning and they are not restricted to any particular organization like ".edu" and ".gov".

 

[lean mean &green]

This is incorrect. When buying a website name, you have the option of choosing ".com", ".org" or ".net", amongst others. These do not have any particular meaning and they are not restricted to any particular organization like ".edu" and ".gov".

nobody said they were legally required to do so, this is a convention which they are observing

 

[RigelKent]

nobody said they were legally required to do so, this is a convention which they are observing

So back to the question, is a hypothetical Livestrong sponsorship the nonprofit or the for profit Livestrong? If I give money for cancer does it pay for racing (and all that comes with it)? Or, if I buy the Livestrong shirt does it go for cancer or into someone's Aspen home?

 

[lean mean &green]

So back to the question, is a hypothetical Livestrong sponsorship the nonprofit or the for profit Livestrong? If I give money for cancer does it pay for racing (and all that comes with it)? Or, if I buy the Livestrong shirt does it go for cancer or into someone's Aspen home?

i'm not sure if it's worth the mental effort to figure it out before thursday's announcement. until then, assume it goes into the Aspen home.

moving forward they have to be dilligent about not dropping the ".com" or the ".org".

 

[racerralph]

Lance's comeback

Good morning, Top of the Lance Armstrong to ya. Looks like a great day to Lance Armstrong Lance Armstrong Lance Armstrong
Lance Armstrong. Oh, and BTW did I mention Lance Armstrong? Well, in that case, let's not forget Lance Armstrong, because Lance Armstrong
Lance Armstrong Lance Armstrong Lance Armstrong. Surely you know that Lance Armstrong creates the possibility that
Lance Armstrong can Lance Armstrong Lance Armstrong and in that event we'd have a very complicated case where Lance Armstrong Lance Armstrong
Lance Armstrong can climb up a place or two, in a peloton that is keenly aware of Lance Armstrong and just how competitive Lance Armstrong can be when we are talking of
the Lance Armstrong from back in the day. Because Lance Armstrong is a formidable Lance Armstrong Lance Armstrong Lance Armstrong when we talk
mountain stages, Lance Armstrong gives us all pause, and furthermore, we must consider his skills as an Lance Armstrong Lance Armstrong
Lance Armstrong time trial diesel monstrosity. So, in the end, Lance Armstrong Lance Armstrong Lance Armstrong cannot be discounted until Lance Armstrong
Lance Armstrong Lance Armstrong reaches the Champs Elysees. Oh, did I mention that there actually are other riders in this race besides Lance Armstrong Lance Armstrong Lance Armstrong. Lance Armstrong?
Well, if I didn't, please let me apologize. Lest we make it seem that we have absolutely no respect or consideration for any rider other than Lance Armstrong. Because in the presence of the Lance Armstrong, there's really not much need to focus on anything but Lance Armstrong Lance Armstrong Lance Armstrong.
So, in closing let me Lance Armstrong Lance Armstrong, and leave you with this singular thought. Don't forget Lance Armstrong Lance Armstrong Lance Armstrong, who must always be considered a favorite for this race, whether Lance Armstrong Lance Armstrong Lance Armstrong is in it, or not. Because in all of our hearts, Lance Armstrong is always in this race, one way or another. And thus, there is always a chance for another Lance Armstrong victory !

Lance Armstrong Lance Armstrong Lance Armstrong Lance Armstrong Lance Armstrong

 

[dgodave]

Good morning, Top of the Lance Armstrong to ya. Looks like a great day to Lance Armstrong Lance Armstrong Lance Armstrong
Lance Armstrong. Oh, and BTW did I mention Lance Armstrong? Well, in that case, let's not forget Lance Armstrong, because Lance Armstrong
Lance Armstrong Lance Armstrong Lance Armstrong. Surely you know that Lance Armstrong creates the possibility that
Lance Armstrong can Lance Armstrong Lance Armstrong and in that event we'd have a very complicated case where Lance Armstrong Lance Armstrong
Lance Armstrong can climb up a place or two, in a peloton that is keenly aware of Lance Armstrong and just how competitive Lance Armstrong can be when we are talking of
the Lance Armstrong from back in the day. Because Lance Armstrong is a formidable Lance Armstrong Lance Armstrong Lance Armstrong when we talk
mountain stages, Lance Armstrong gives us all pause, and furthermore, we must consider his skills as an Lance Armstrong Lance Armstrong
Lance Armstrong time trial diesel monstrosity. So, in the end, Lance Armstrong Lance Armstrong Lance Armstrong cannot be discounted until Lance Armstrong
Lance Armstrong Lance Armstrong reaches the Champs Elysees. Oh, did I mention that there actually are other riders in this race besides Lance Armstrong Lance Armstrong Lance Armstrong. Lance Armstrong?
Well, if I didn't, please let me apologize. Lest we make it seem that we have absolutely no respect or consideration for any rider other than Lance Armstrong. Because in the presence of the Lance Armstrong, there's really not much need to focus on anything but Lance Armstrong Lance Armstrong Lance Armstrong.
So, in closing let me Lance Armstrong Lance Armstrong, and leave you with this singular thought. Don't forget Lance Armstrong Lance Armstrong Lance Armstrong, who must always be considered a favorite for this race, whether Lance Armstrong Lance Armstrong Lance Armstrong is in it, or not. Because in all of our hearts, Lance Armstrong is always in this race, one way or another. And thus, there is always a chance for another Lance Armstrong victory !

Lance Armstrong Lance Armstrong Lance Armstrong Lance Armstrong Lance Armstrong

Thats what I want to hear!!! Less sniping, more LANCE!
.

 

[Greg Johnson]

Oh, did I mention that there actually are other riders in this race besides Lance Armstrong Lance Armstrong Lance Armstrong. Lance Armstrong?
Well, if I didn't, please let me apologize. Lest we make it seem that we have absolutely no respect or consideration for any rider other than Lance Armstrong. Because in the presence of the Lance Armstrong, there's really not much need to focus on anything but Lance Armstrong Lance Armstrong Lance Armstrong.

Nobody is forcing you to take part in this thread. There are others.

Cheers
Greg Johnson

 

[Azdak6]

So back to the question, is a hypothetical Livestrong sponsorship the nonprofit or the for profit Livestrong? If I give money for cancer does it pay for racing (and all that comes with it)? Or, if I buy the Livestrong shirt does it go for cancer or into someone's Aspen home?

If you are truly interested, it is easy to determine the answer on the website and in the audited financial statements published there, rather than engage in endless speculation. It appears that anything purchased through the livestrong.org website is going to the foundation. Actually, there is nothing to purchase on Livestrong.com--it looks like it is just a site for information and tools for health and fitness.

I don't know about all of the Livestrong branded products that are sold outside of the LAF website. I know that Nike states that it donates 100% of all profits from Nike Livestrong merchandise to the foundation. Other companies that produce Livestrong branded products do not have Nike's deep pockets, so I doubt they will be able to follow that same policy.

 

[autologous]

If you are truly interested, it is easy to determine the answer on the website and in the audited financial statements published there, rather than engage in endless speculation.

Surely you can't be serious?
Your answer to the issues surrounding the confusion that are so well stated here :

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

+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.

is to go look at the audited financial statements? Seriously?

Holy crap did you miss the point!

You shouldn't have to do some detailed research to determine which branch of the livestrong empire does what. It should be obvious to all up front, so that there is no cloud hanging over everything, no insinuation that Lance is trading on cancer and taking advantage of whatever generous impulses are stirred by the general public's empathy for his history and cause.

 

[racerralph]

Nobody is forcing you to take part in this thread. There are others.

Cheers
Greg Johnson

As always, someone's always trying to quote you, out of context. But since we're here, I wasn't forced at all, I was compelled by the sheer density and enormity of it all! If you can't quite fathom it, blow it off. Glad you took the time to read it anyway.

 

[lean mean &green]

As always, someone's always trying to quote you, out of context. But since we're here, I wasn't forced at all, I was compelled by the sheer density and enormity of it all! If you can't quite fathom it, blow it off. Glad you took the time to read it anyway.

greg is the moderator, he is just suggesting you try another thread if you don't want to talk about LA

 

[Azdak6]

Surely you can't be serious?
Your answer to the issues surrounding the confusion that are so well stated here :



is to go look at the audited financial statements? Seriously?

Holy crap did you miss the point!

You shouldn't have to do some detailed research to determine which branch of the livestrong empire does what. It should be obvious to all up front, so that there is no cloud hanging over everything, no insinuation that Lance is trading on cancer and taking advantage of whatever generous impulses are stirred by the general public's empathy for his history and cause.

It takes about 30 seconds on the website to figure out where the $$ are going. The other stuff was extra for the slow learners. (BTW the audited statements are all posted on the site--so it only takes an extra minute or two to get all the "detail").

I realize that is not as much fun as creating strawman arguments, but it also doesn't waste everyone's time.

 

[racerralph]

greg is the moderator, he is just suggesting you try another thread if you don't want to talk about LA

Thank you very much for notifying me that Greg is the moderator. But it wasn't really necessary. For those of us that take any talk that's not praise for Lance as a slam, I feel sorrow. But I was just noting that whether you love Lance or not, this Tour de France has become a Lance Armstrong vehicle that has taken on proportions I'll bet no one ever expected. I've been to France and back, as a Lance fan, that's more than I can say for a huge portion of Lance fans in the world, so I don't need to justify myself to anyone.
When I have to apply for membership in a thread, I will gladly submit my application. But even then, I beg your pardon. But, I will say what is on my mind, not just sing in the choir. I hope this doesn't hurt anyone's feelings.
As much as I admire Lance for a long list of his ideas, accomplishments, and skills. The Tour, as brought to us by Versus TV, is nothing more than the Lance show. It was not until this Sunday that the announcing team seemed to realize that there was a fellow in the race named Alberto Contador.
I'll tell you what, I sure hope that Lance can hang on to 2nd on GC. But it would be nice if the race had been brought to us a little more evenly than what we have had to watch for the first two terribly, boring weeks.(see Sastre's remarks too) Sorry if I've ruffled your feathers, but you could have left that between me and Greg. You didn't really need to explain that all to me. But, Thanks anyway.

 

[iceaxe]

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.

Were those the three that overheard his doctor say he needed steriods as part of his recovery from cancer?

 

[rhubroma]

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.

+1 Amen...

 

[Dr. Maserati]

So back to the question, is a hypothetical Livestrong sponsorship the nonprofit or the for profit Livestrong? If I give money for cancer does it pay for racing (and all that comes with it)? Or, if I buy the Livestrong shirt does it go for cancer or into someone's Aspen home?

Try and decide for yourself! From thisinterview 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.

 

[BroDeal]

Try and decide for yourself! From thisinterview 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.

That says is right there. He AND his foundation have an equity stake in Demand Media. Demand raised several hundred million dollars from venture capitalists with the goal of going public. That he does not currently make money right now says nothing about what he personally will make when Demand has its IPO. Essentially he is wh0ring out the brand name of his charity to a bunch of VCs, so they and he can make money.

 

[whiteboytrash]

That says is right there. He AND his foundation have an equity stake in Demand Media. Demand raised several hundred million dollars from venture capitalists with the goal of going public. That he does not currently make money right now says nothing about what he personally will make when has its IPO. Essentially he is wh0ring out the brand name of his charity to a bunch of VCs, so they and he can make money.

It's all a little ugly but good on him for trying. He's correct he doesn't make a dime from Livestrong.com. Demand does which he has a share in along with paying all of his "Livestrong" related exspenses. So the private jet, the fancy art designed Treks, the dinners, coffees with Stiller are paid by the fools who donate and buy the Livestrong product beliving it's a charity.

He makes a dime from Demand and having no outgoings. That's a good life. People who are sick pay for it. Shocking.

Now that he won't win the Tour it can be understood why he came back. Credit crunch = less cash. What was the point otherwise ? Any ex-pro 4 years out of the game could ride with the front group but not win.