The blurred lines of Livestrong - the spin bike sham

[Dr. Maserati]

Even after the donation to the LAF, I still think Lance will make more money off his trainers than Greg makes off his. Disappointment Greg

Greg had to sue RevMaster for crap bikes BTW:

"Life Fitness parent Brunswick Corp. struck first, recently filing a civil suit in Illinois seeking damages of more than $3.9 million from LeMond Fitness. The damages would be compensation for complaints it says it has received over alleged RevMaster Pro indoor cycles that aren’t functioning properly. These quality issues, according to Life Fitness, forced the company to terminate its distribution agreement early with LeMond Fitness.

Instead of sitting idly by waiting for this lawsuit to play out, LeMond Fitness went on the offensive, strongly denying these allegations with a lawsuit in Federal Court, seeking more than $1 million from Life Fitness as a result of the early termination."

http://www.bicycleretailer.com/news/newsDetail/2821.html

Sorry to burst your bubble - but, no need to worry about GL.

As the case you cited was quickly settled and Life Fitness continued to work with LeMond.

 

[Beech Mtn]

You know that DemandMedia did their negotiating with LAF and not LA or CSE?

I've seen the brand "LiveStrong" used in ways that were rather unclear as to the true intention, where I actually wonder who the beneficiary is.

Is anyone able to find documentation on whom the LiveStrong trademark was filed by?

You can search the US Patent and Trademark Office here. There a ton of results for Livestrong.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No, "livestrong" IS the LAF. Livestrong.com is not, but the LAF owns all rights to the livestrong brand. They sold the rights to Demand Media for livestrong.com, but not the brand itself.

Now in theory, the charity could GIVE that money to Lance, but if the name livestrong appears on a product, you can be assued that the LAF was in some way compensated.

If as you say "the LAF own the rights to the livestrong brand", then why add "you can be assued [sic] that the LAF was in some way compensated".

If the LAF own the rights then they should be the only ones to be compensated.

 

[BotanyBay]

You can search the US Patent and Trademark Office here. There a ton of results for Livestrong.

Thank you Beech Mtn. OK, so the LAF owns the "Livestrong" trademark name as well as the "Livestrong.com" trademark name. All nice and sheltered.

But this does not mean that the LAF is not allowing DemandMedia to send a separate check to Lance Armstrong himself. Are they? Anyone?

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

Thank you Beech Mtn. OK, so the LAF owns the "Livestrong" trademark name as well as the "Livestrong.com" trademark name. All nice and sheltered.
But this does not mean that the LAF is not allowing DemandMedia to send a separate check to Lance Armstrong himself. Are they? Anyone?

Yes. That's the $10 - $12 million worth of warrants or "significant" share in demand that everyone keeps talking about.

 

[BotanyBay]

Yes. That's the $10 - $12 million worth of warrants or "significant" share in demand that everyone keeps talking about.

They should just hire Lance as a Kancer Konsultant at $1MM per year, you know, so that they have someone on staff to help them understand Kancer better.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

They should just hire Lance as a Kancer Konsultant at $1MM per year, you know, so that they have someone on staff to help them understand Kancer better.

Meh, you're still thinking like a small time shyster ; anyone can put a few dubious consulting fees, overinflated appearance fees, or chartered jet expenses onto the charity books. To really swindle charitable trusts on a grand scale, you need to figure out how to get a fat cut before any income arrives on the charities books. The whole scam has a certain elegance. It's going to be incredible difficult to asses what fraction of corporate dollars went to LAF for the brand and what fraction went to LA for the personal endorsement, for many of the deals that were set up like this.

To me, that ratio says it all. A small slice = fair enough. 40% lance, 50% 28 million cancer sufferers...fark off.

I'm repeating myself here but the question I really want to see reporters asking is "Lance, how much do you personally earn from endorsing or promoting livestrong branded products?"

 

[D-Queued]

...

I'm repeating myself here but the question I really want to see reporters asking is "Lance, how much do you personally earn from endorsing or promoting livestrong branded products?"

Waste of breath, unfortunately.

The almost certain response: 'I don't know/can't recall/don't remember/not sure" just like the many such citations in his SCA testimony.

Dave.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

Waste of breath, unfortunately.

The almost certain response: 'I don't know/can't recall/don't remember/not sure" just like the many such citations in his SCA testimony.

Dave.

Of course but the obfuscation would be pretty obvious.....hope hides again!

 

[BotanyBay]

I'm repeating myself here but the question I really want to see reporters asking is "Lance, how much do you personally earn from endorsing or promoting livestrong branded products?"

I wish I could say that the reason they wont ask it is because he won't answer it, but we all know the reasons are more *** than that.

 

[Polish]

I'm repeating myself here but the question I really want to see reporters asking is "Lance, how much do you personally earn from endorsing or promoting livestrong branded products?"

I think they should also ask "how much the LAF profits from Lance"...

2 way street.

If Lance did not have a Foundation, it is hard to say if he would earn more or earn less.
More than Greg though, either way.

 

[euanli]

aye but i know who i'd rather trust donating my money to

 

[D-Queued]

Of course but the obfuscation would be pretty obvious.....hope hides again!

Just because it is fun to remember:

Q: You have made a -- a contribution or donation to the UCI, have you not?
A. I have, yeah.
Q. Do you know when that was made?
A. Some years ago. I don't recall exactly.
Q. Well, 2000, for example?
A. I don't know.
...
Q. Did you tell UCI you were going to make it before you did?
A. I don't recall, but I don't think so. I don't know.
Q. You gave $25,000, or approximately $25,000 to the UCI, but you don't remember if you told them beforehand that you were sending them a check?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Had you ever given any money to UCI before?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever given any money since?
A. I have pledged money since, but I don't think I've done it yet.
Q. When did you pledge money?
A. I don't remember. Between now and then.
...
Q. Okay. Do you know what UCI did with the money?
A. I don't know.
Q. Who did you give the money to?
A. Well, if you sent a check or a wire, I don't know who received it, but...
Q. I mean, like -- is it literally like one day the UCI guy comes in, opens up the mail, and there's a check from you for $25,000?
A. I mean, I don't know. I wasn't in the mail room.
Q. Okay. But did you let anyone know this is coming?
A. I told you, I don't remember.
Q. Okay. Have you spoken to anyone at UCI regarding your donation?
A. Yeah.
Q. Who?
A. I have spoken to Alain Rumpf, Hein Verbruggen, perhaps others.
Q. Do you know what they've done with the money?
A. I just told you, I don't know.
Q. Okay. Like they didn't buy some specific equipment or something with it that you're aware of? It wasn't earmarked --
A. Which part of I don't know do you not understand?
...
Q. Are you aware of any other professional cyclists who's given money to UCI?
A. I don't know. I'm not aware. Personally, I think there should be -- I think everybody should contribute to the fund.
Q. How does UCI get its money? Do you know?
A. I have no idea.
Q. Okay.
A. Honestly, I don't know.
Q. That part of "I don't know" I understood. Believe me.

The count:

55 I don't know
21 I don't think/think so
20 I don't recall
17 I don't remember
7 not to my recollection
3 I don't see
3 I'm not 100 percent sure
1 I'm not aware
1 I don't ever recall

Dave.

 

[BotanyBay]

A. I don't know. I'm not aware. Personally, I think there should be -- I think everybody should contribute to the fund.

The atty missed a real opportunity here: "WHAT FUND? Tell me more about a fund"

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Of course but the obfuscation would be pretty obvious.....hope hides again!

Actually Bonnie D. Ford of ESPN asked in June 2009 - he is (technically) correct in his answer.....

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.

 

[D-Queued]

Actually Bonnie D. Ford of ESPN asked in June 2009 - he is (technically) correct in his answer.....

And the choice part was this:

I think if we paid closer attention to the .com side of things, ultimately a lot of people wouldn't need the .org side

Get rid of the Charity and then he could make real money.

Dave.

 

[Polish]

Just because it is fun to remember:

"I mean, I don't know. I wasn't in the mail room."

"I just told you, I don't know."

"Which part of I don't know do you not understand?"

Dave.

Those are fantastic. Imagine the look on Lance's face lol.
I can only assume Lance won whatever battle those quotes came from...

"You kids get off my lawn."
"Leave my sprinklers alone"

Hopefully Lance will age like Hinault....

 

[Race Radio]

Meh, you're still thinking like a small time shyster ; anyone can put a few dubious consulting fees, overinflated appearance fees, or chartered jet expenses onto the charity books. To really swindle charitable trusts on a grand scale, you need to figure out how to get a fat cut before any income arrives on the charities books. The whole scam has a certain elegance. It's going to be incredible difficult to asses what fraction of corporate dollars went to LAF for the brand and what fraction went to LA for the personal endorsement, for many of the deals that were set up like this.

To me, that ratio says it all. A small slice = fair enough. 40% lance, 50% 28 million cancer sufferers...fark off.

I'm repeating myself here but the question I really want to see reporters asking is "Lance, how much do you personally earn from endorsing or promoting livestrong branded products?"

He made AT LEAST $12 million from pimping the charity to Demand
Another $1 million a year in cash from Demand
$7 million + a year from Nike

Walk into any bar in California and you will see a sign. It will tell you that consumption of alcohol will increase your risk of cancer.....in some way that crap beer that Wonderboy pimp's contributes to the growth of Livestrong.

 

[flicker]

He made AT LEAST $12 million from pimping the charity to Demand
Another $1 million a year in cash from Demand
$7 million + a year from Nike

Walk into any bar in California and you will see a sign. It will tell you that consumption of alcohol will increase your risk of cancer.....in some way that crap beer that Wonderboy pimp's contributes to the growth of Livestrong.

More Bolshevik rhetoric, come the revolution it going to be like this and like that....

Darn capatalists need to stay out of cycling...

 

[D-Queued]

He made AT LEAST $12 million from pimping the charity to Demand
Another $1 million a year in cash from Demand
$7 million + a year from Nike

Walk into any bar in California and you will see a sign. It will tell you that consumption of alcohol will increase your risk of cancer.....in some way that crap beer that Wonderboy pimp's contributes to the growth of Livestrong.

Damn it. Livestrong got scooped by the Surgeon General - again.

Why do we need Livestrong if there are 22 billion cigarette pack warnings per year creating cancer awareness in the US alone?

Dave.

 

[Ferminal]

Damn it. Livestrong got scooped by the Surgeon General - again.

Why do we need Livestrong if there are 22 billion cigarette pack warnings per year creating cancer awareness in the US alone?

Dave.

That's 785 per every person worldwide suffering from cancer.

Perhaps Lance will wear 785 at the TdU?

 

[D-Queued]

That's 785 per every person worldwide suffering from cancer.

Perhaps Lance will wear 785 at the TdU?

Lance should take up smoking.

Dave.

 

[LastRide]

This caught my eye this morning along with the first comment on the Wired website. Now excuse my maths but I think the basic principle of my argument still applies....


http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/12/livestrong-stationary-bike-wins-tour-de-bedroom/

Great review of the new @livestrongfit spin bike in @wired !! http://tinyurl.com/34p6v2x - Lance Armstrong Twitter feed.
_

The article reads:

The Livestrong Limited Edition Indoor Cycle differs from all other stationary bikes in just one way: It looks totally bad-***.

The bike, which comes in the trademark yellow-and-black colorway, will cost $1,700, $1,000 of which goes to Livestrong, Lance Armstrong’s cancer charity. Just 500 will be made, and there are several Lance and cancer-themed design flourishes: the number 28 on the fork represents the “28 million people living with cancer,” and the “seven stars on the seat post represent Armstrong’s record-breaking seven Tour de France wins.”

- What interested me most was that $1000 of the $1700 price tag goes to Livestrong.

The first comment below the article says:

-“Stepping back - its a cool product. It's a cooler gesture to be donating more than half the cost to cancer research. It's even a fair price for such a good looking piece of equipment. - I'll lobby my health club to consider a few of these and do the right thing”

On the surface $1000 out of $1700 does seem very good. To the casual observer that’s $1000 straight from the purchase for “cancer research”. If I was going to buy a spin bike I might as well buy this one because well over “half” is going to charity and its a good cause. The fact that it has the “28” logo down the side of the bike means it’s a representation of “cancer suffers” - again reasserting the theme its for "cancer research".

Didnt they have a set up like this for all the Trek's at some stage? Oh yeah, that one was 100% into medical programs that produce cancer.

 

[flicker]

Correct on both counts, the line is just re-branded crap that was rushed out to spite Lemond. No wonder they have had to recall some of the line

http://www.newsomelaw.com/blog/2010...rong-fitness-equipment-launches-safety-recall

This is really the trainer combining lances 2010 stage 3+stage 8 tdf rides, simply authentic.

 

[kurtinsc]

If as you say "the LAF own the rights to the livestrong brand", then why add "you can be assued [sic] that the LAF was in some way compensated".

If the LAF own the rights then they should be the only ones to be compensated.

It's business... things are often dodgy.

By the letter of the agreement, I'm sure that the LAF recieved 100% of the compensation for granting use of the "livestrong" brand in every case. But I'm betting much of the time Lance signed a sponsorship deal that also got him some cash.

I think this is the way Lance profits from the LAF almost exclusively. It's not extremely moral, but in terms of legalities he's not even near the line. It's completely above board. He trades on the connection to livestrong to set up speaking engagements and endorsement deals.

The LAF doesn't mind because it's just advertising and added fundraising for them... and probably gets them opportunities to lease their brand that would otherwise not be present.

Lance profits... but not directly from the charity, instead getting paid by companies who also pay the charity.


My biggest issue with the conspiracies about Lance getting things like jet fuel or pushing dollars to demand media from the LAF is it makes very little sense. He's profiting so much by simply leaching off the companies who associate with the LAF through sponsorship deals and speaking engagments... why risk that over something relatively small?