Official Lance Armstrong thread

[lean mean &green]

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.

I also just did some snooping around livestrong.com, I've never been on there before today, and here's what i found.

Most if not all of the services appear to be free, membership as far as i can tell is free.

They offer a wide range of tools and supports for weight loss. eg calorie calculators, BMI calculators, as well as race updates, etc.

It appears that most of the revenue they generate is just from advertising. they need to make some money to maintain the site's overhead after all.

my conclusion is:
livestrong.com was created to help people lose weight, not for world domination. they might turn a small profit but it looks like an off shoot of livestrong.org, it seems to me that when supporters demanded more services and the LAF could not support the lifestyle/behavior change efforts they created an ad supported ".com"

I think that the for-profit is just the website, anything else that says livestrong refers to the LAF. When naming these sites they probably didn't assume that obsessed forum dwellers would jump to the wrong conclusions.

This is conjecture but, as far as sponsoring a bike team they probably wouldn't. One way around the moral dilemma would be for a bike team to incur the additional cost to add livestrong graphics to team kits/buses/etc. They might even be able to deduct those costs as a charitable donation later on getting a nice portion back. These costs are also minimal. Probably a heck of a bargain if you have someone with rockstar status riding for a salary of zero dollars as LA has been known to do.

I tried really hard to find something wrong but couldn't. My guess is that the money from your bracelet or your snazzy new livestrong t-shirt contributes nothing to Lance's kitchen remodel or to a future cycling team. It would appear to be legit.

What's worse than trading on cancer? Wrongly accusing someone of trading on cancer.

 

[rhubroma]

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.

Those were my first thoughts. He doesn't make a dime from .com? So. He doesn't have to, given he makes loads on Demand, for which the "donations to the sick" fatten his coffers nicely with the benefits you mentioned. It's among the slimiest capitalist ventures out there, like taking taxable income (in this case cancer charity funds) from your business (Livestrong.com) and then investing it in some off-shore and tax-free state banking/stock venture (Demand) and drawing a handsome salary from it (or perks like the private jet). It's just perverse, given the cancer community is making all this possible.

And there are actually people who think he's a saint! I said people, though I should have said sheep.

 

[Mellow Velo]

Playing around with monikers is pretty juvenile, you disappoint me by stooping to such a level, though I suppose it shows how desperate hateboy world is getting.

Now, either you're blind, stupid, mischievous, or all three. If you weren't, you'd know that I've never shot my mouth off about LA will do 'this' or he'll do 'that' or that he has a chance of beating AC. I don't share the psychotic hatred of you and your gang, but I'm certainly not the blind worshiper you seem to mistake me for. I do applaud him for what he's done for cancer awareness, but let's not go there again, since the subject leads to apoplectic fits in some.

Jokehammer=Jackhammer, not Amsterhammer.
You ain't stupid, except in this mistake.
Besides, when have you gone quiet?
Anyhow: Apologies for the lack of clarity.
Oh and it's the third of your 3 options.

 

[Mellow Velo]

Team Nike Livestrong is coming folks.

Is this a definite? What was the Oracle meeting on the rest day all about?
A co sponsor, maybe?

 

[goober]

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.

I would believe the private jet, treks, etc. are paid for by his Nike, Trek, etc. endorsements - do you even have a clue how much he makes with endorsements? They are not paid for by 'fools who donate' as you call them since donations are made through the non-profit foundation (.org). The majority of the .com profits come from advertising and not from 'people who are sick pay for it'. And suggesting any ex-pro 4 years out could ride with the front group is totally delusional as today about 150+ of the top professional riders in the world could not keep up in the front. You are obviously a sour grape.

 

[goober]

Those were my first thoughts. He doesn't make a dime from .com? So. He doesn't have to, given he makes loads on Demand, for which the "donations to the sick" fatten his coffers nicely with the benefits you mentioned. It's among the slimiest capitalist ventures out there, like taking taxable income (in this case cancer charity funds) from your business (Livestrong.com) and then investing it in some off-shore and tax-free state banking/stock venture (Demand) and drawing a handsome salary from it (or perks like the private jet). It's just perverse, given the cancer community is making all this possible.

And there are actually people who think he's a saint! I said people, though I should have said sheep.

How does Demand relate to 'Donations to the sick' from the non-profit foundation (.org)? The situation I see described here indicates the foundation (.org) makes money from Demand (.com) as it is a stakeholder - something I am sure Lance mandated. Please provide your source showing the private jet is paid by the foundation. Another confused sour grape.

 

[poupou]

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.

How many people know that there is 2 different Livestrong ?

Why would they check when they don't know?

In most countries that kind of thing is not allowed. Why? Because it's obvious that is too easy to be a fraud with similar names and similar colors and similar people involved in the 2!

 

[Amsterhammer]

Jokehammer=Jackhammer, not Amsterhammer.
You ain't stupid, except in this mistake.
Besides, when have you gone quiet?
Anyhow: Apologies for the lack of clarity.
Oh and it's the third of your 3 options.

In which case, and having removed blobs of egg from my face, please accept my sincere apology.

(Too many (ex)users with 'hammer' in their name)

 

[Anonymous]

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

No, they heard Lance admit to using EPO and other performance enhancing drugs.

 

[Cobber]

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.

How does Demand relate to 'Donations to the sick' from the non-profit foundation (.org)? The situation I see described here indicates the foundation (.org) makes money from Demand (.com) as it is a stakeholder - something I am sure Lance mandated. Please provide your source showing the private jet is paid by the foundation. Another confused sour grape.

Armstrong answered that himself! "Both the foundation and myself have equity in Demand". Where does the foundation get money to buy equity in Demand???

 

[RigelKent]

Armstrong answered that himself! "Both the foundation and myself have equity in Demand". Where does the foundation get money to buy equity in Demand???

It isn't at all unusual for non-profit foundations to have investments in for-profit enterprises. It's part of having a diversified inflow of money. Ultimately my problem is the personality that drives both--the brand as it was stated earlier--makes the issue a bit more confusing, especially when you start mixing in brand building/awareness like sponsoring a cycling team with the "brand's" personal ambitions of winning a race.

 

[BroDeal]

Armstrong answered that himself! "Both the foundation and myself have equity in Demand". Where does the foundation get money to buy equity in Demand???

They did not buy equity in Demand Media with money. They gave Demand the livestrong.com brand name in exhange for equity in the company.

The question arises as to why Armstrong personally gets a stake in Demand if his charitable foundation was the only one giving anything of value to Demand.

 

[rhubroma]

Demand relates to "donations to the sick," because of the confused people who give money to L.com

That Armstrong has a stake in Demand, which, in turn, invests in L.com for profit, makes the who cirquit riddled with a thoroughly tasteless confilct of interests so typical of corporate capitalism. And it (the corporate capitalism) is a culture which has nothing to do with, is antithetical to, real charity and the diginty of helping those who need it without profit.

 

[Bala Verde]

Nissan and Google mentioned as new sponsors for Teamstrong

I bet google will then direct your query to the amrstrong foundation no matter what you enter...

 

[Cobber]

Nissan and Google mentioned as new sponsors for Teamstrong

I bet google will then direct your query to the amrstrong foundation no matter what you enter...

Hmm... if that's true I am going to have to boycott google and start using cuil.com as my preferred search engine. It's going to be tough!

 

[goober]

Demand relates to "donations to the sick," because of the confused people who give money to L.com

That Armstrong has a stake in Demand, which, in turn, invests in L.com for profit, makes the who cirquit riddled with a thoroughly tasteless confilct of interests so typical of corporate capitalism. And it (the corporate capitalism) is a culture which has nothing to do with, is antithetical to, real charity and the diginty of helping those who need it without profit.

You are confused. People do not give money to the .com. The .com makes money through advertising and some product. The .org is where you can give money. I think you should look more closely at the financial statements for the .org before discussing 'corporate capitalism' which BTW is probably how your paycheck is derived. Why so sour?

 

[goober]

How many people know that there is 2 different Livestrong ?

Why would they check when they don't know?

In most countries that kind of thing is not allowed. Why? Because it's obvious that is too easy to be a fraud with similar names and similar colors and similar people involved in the 2!

Why does it matter? What country is that not allowed? If you are talking North Korea where it is not allowed because nothing is allowed that does not count. What fraud are you referring to?

 

[iceaxe]

No, they heard Lance admit to using EPO and other performance enhancing drugs.

The five other people in the room including the doctor didnt hear that. The doctor discussed steriods as part of a strategy to help him recover from the cancer treatment.

 

[BroDeal]

The five other people in the room including the doctor didnt hear that. The doctor discussed steriods as part of a strategy to help him recover from the cancer treatment.

Four of them did. You should take this to The Clinic where it can be disussed freely.

 

[Anonymous]

The five other people in the room including the doctor didnt hear that. The doctor discussed steriods as part of a strategy to help him recover from the cancer treatment.

You don't know what you are talking about, not a surprise.

 

[ad9898]

Are we still groaning on about Armstrong and doping, christ almighty I thought the fact that he'd come back after 4 years off and handed 98% of the peloton their asses on a plate would have put this subject to bed. If he had doped all through his career, then surely he would be doping now, he'd have to be to be so far up, yet why would he come back and risk being busted, when he could have just batted away the questions of his 7 tour victories as 'never tested positive', with no chance of any recourse.

It seems incredible that he would put his entire life (personal, corporate etc.) in jeopardy to finish on the podium in the 2009 tour, and risk being busted for doping.

I have never thought he's doped, and his perfomance in this tour reinforces this.

 

[joeykcyclist]

I don't know if he's ever doped or not...but he sure looks good out there racing for a 37 year old! Who wants to bet that his team next year will be sponsored by Apple and TWitter and the outfits will be black with a mishmash of iPhone apps printed on.

-=J

 

[lean mean &green]

livestrong.com is obviously an off shoot of livestrong.org.

my guess is that supporters were demanding resources and supports that didn't fall under the umbrella of the ".org". resources like news, online tools for weight loss and moral support. developing a new site and running it costs money so they created an ad supported ".com". from the little bit of snooping i've done it looks like most of the resources on ".com" are free. membership also appears free, just a little "name capture". revenue seems to be generated entirely from advertisers, i'm sure that nike and oakley are aware of the financials when they place these ads.

if you want to make a donation it steers you back to the LAF thru links to the ".org"

the names are a tiny bit confusing but it's not evidence that lance is a corrupt fraudulent antichrist bent on world domination

let's move on to the next conspiracy theory shall we.

 

[elapid]

Are we still groaning on about Armstrong and doping, christ almighty I thought the fact that he'd come back after 4 years off and handed 98% of the peloton their asses on a plate would have put this subject to bed. If he had doped all through his career, then surely he would be doping now, he'd have to be to be so far up, yet why would he come back and risk being busted, when he could have just batted away the questions of his 7 tour victories as 'never tested positive', with no chance of any recourse.

It seems incredible that he would put his entire life (personal, corporate etc.) in jeopardy to finish on the podium in the 2009 tour, and risk being busted for doping.

I have never thought he's doped, and his perfomance in this tour reinforces this.

And you didn't want to jump on the merry-go-round!

 

[mherm79]

It seems incredible that he would put his entire life (personal, corporate etc.) in jeopardy to finish on the podium in the 2009 tour, and risk being busted for doping.

I have never thought he's doped, and his perfomance in this tour reinforces this.

+1

after watching the stage last night I wonder whether he could have bridged the gap to the Schelcks if he had of attacked earlier. Sure, he can't match their accelerations but as he showed on st16 he can ride across the gap as soon as they settle into a tempo.

the guy is pure class and is showing all the doubters that strenght + tactics is the way to ride the TdF.

I now think AC is lucky to have him on the team, LA / JB combo has helped him get/retain yellow.