The blurred lines of Livestrong - the spin bike sham

Page 29 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
HPC: On a different topic, there were rumours that you were thinking of running for political office, but you've refuted that. Why?

LA: Our job is to represent that community [of people with cancer]. And at the same time, we have to ask politicians for certain things, whether it’s funding or whether it’s to be a volunteer at an event. Politics are personal, so as soon as somebody picks a side, people get upset about that.

The other part is just the nasty nature of that world and the way that the media -- not to fault them, but the way that it’s just so hard on these people running for office. I mean,I could never put my kids through it. Even just having their dad being me and whatever’s gone on the last 20 years as an athlete … their world is different. You go into politics and it’s ruthless.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/03/29/lance-armstrong-2012_n_1262237.html
 
Jul 17, 2009
4,317
1
0
DirtyWorks said:
Opposition research would have a field day on that guy. The strip clubs would provide enough fodder to end the campaign.
that and the bank gift to Planned Parenthood. both kick a$$ imho
 
Boeing said:
that and the bank gift to Planned Parenthood. both kick a$$ imho
Will this turn into a sue-me frenzy? Who (with money) doesn't want to be sued by Lance? A nice amount of evidence was collected for your case, which-ever it concerns. Doping allegations, corruption, fake charity, oh the list goes on!
If I were rich, I'd make a hobby out of publically mocking him, begging to be sued. That would be a humane and pro-truth thing to do.
 
Jul 17, 2009
4,317
1
0
DirtyWorks said:
Opposition research would have a field day on that guy. The strip clubs would provide enough fodder to end the campaign.

perhaps it would be refreshing if he launched a career in politics as a conservative and stepped up to the podium and announced all his transgressions and supported women's rights at the same time.
 
May 18, 2009
3,758
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
Opposition research would have a field day on that guy. The strip clubs would provide enough fodder to end the campaign.
Yes, going to strip clubs surely makes you incapable of being a politician. :rolleyes:

PS: I'm not criticizing your point....I am agreeing with it. The fact that people base their vote upon something like this says everything you need to know about how things are so ****ed up.
 
ChrisE said:
Yes, going to strip clubs surely makes you incapable of being a politician. :rolleyes:

PS: I'm not criticizing your point....I am agreeing with it. The fact that people base their vote upon something like this says everything you need to know about how things are so ****ed up.
I think he's not keen on someone in government cracking open the old case file and having it leaked.... best not give someone the reason to do so...... hanging out with strippers won't be a big deal but shifting bucket loads of drugs around the world would probably have him lose a few votes :rolleyes:
 
Aug 9, 2009
640
0
0
thehog said:
I think he's not keen on someone in government cracking open the old case file and having it leaked.... best not give someone the reason to do so...... hanging out with strippers won't be a big deal but shifting bucket loads of drugs around the world would probably have him lose a few votes :rolleyes:
Best not to use the word leak. In case you haven't heard, leaks had no part in the investigation being ended. ;)

And there will be no leaks about the investigation. But there may be leaks about the leaks.

"Cracking open the old case file"? - Sergeant Friday retired a while ago.
Surprised (actually not) that you would make stuff up about USA judicial proceedings. Unless of course you are a lawyer in the USA with experience in these matters. If you do have that experience, I apologise in advance.
 
Cal_Joe said:
Best not to use the word leak. In case you haven't heard, leaks had no part in the investigation being ended. ;)

And there will be no leaks about the investigation. But there may be leaks about the leaks.

"Cracking open the old case file"? - Sergeant Friday retired a while ago.
Surprised (actually not) that you would make stuff up about USA judicial proceedings. Unless of course you are a lawyer in the USA with experience in these matters. If you do have that experience, I apologise in advance.
I think you missed the point by a long way.

Politics is a tough game in the US. When politicians run for office all sorts of things come out into the wild. It's par for the course.

I think Lance knows there's always been dirt out there on him. But now the difference is that there are documents from the investigation stored away.

Those things have a habit of "appearing" when one excels in the polls or presents themselves as something they're clearly not.

I'm not talking about investigation leaks I'm talking dirty politics and those who would find this stuff and let it seep out into the wild.

I respect him for no longer wanting to enter into politics. With a past like his he'd be setting himself up for an almighty battle. A point he acknowledged in my link.

You're always so quick to jump on me - why? Is it what I say or just me you don't like?
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
1
0
DirtyWorks said:
Opposition research would have a field day on that guy. The strip clubs would provide enough fodder to end the campaign.
Yeah President Bill Clinton seemed to not have any trouble. :D
 
Glenn_Wilson said:
Yeah President Bill Clinton seemed to not have any trouble. :D
Do you think Lance could have used the "..I never inhaled" line?

By that at the very least he'd be asked questions about his drug use. I don't think SCA trial like responses of "...I don't recall" would cut it on that stage.

Besides once Tyler's, Floyds and David Walsh's new book hits the stands there will be plenty of fodder for journalists and opposing politiians to get excited about.

I don't think he'd be eaten alive as he's a touch character but there would be so much distraction from all the stories true or not he'd never stand a chance.
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,355
0
0
thehog said:
Do you think Lance could have used the "..I never inhaled" line?

By that at the very least he'd be asked questions about his drug use. I don't think SCA trial like responses of "...I don't recall" would cut it on that stage.

Besides once Tyler's, Floyds and David Walsh's new book hits the stands there will be plenty of fodder for journalists and opposing politiians to get excited about.

I don't think he'd be eaten alive as he's a touch character but there would be so much distraction from all the stories true or not he'd never stand a chance.
I CAN'T wait for this book by Floyd.
 
Aug 9, 2009
640
0
0
thehog said:
I think you missed the point by a long way.... [and other hog babble]
Just let me know when sealed GJ testimony is used in an election contest.

You need to stop making stuff up and stop confusing your wish list with the real world - hopefully that answers your last clueless question.
 
Cal_Joe said:
Just let me know when sealed GJ testimony is used in an election contest.

You need to stop making stuff up and stop confusing your wish list with the real world - hopefully that answers your last clueless question.
You said anything about sealed GJ testimony? now who's making stuff up?

I was mealy agreeing with Lance Armstrongs comments on why he no longer wants to enter politics. You don't agree with him?

It rather pointless arguing with you because your playing the man not the ball.

The funny thing is the more you you go after me the stupider you look. You've been doing it for sometime now.

I know I get on your nerves. It's ok. I'm not the enemy.

Sometime ago I asked you to take a journey. A journey with the truth. I think you might need to go back there again and find out what makes you so angry in relation to this subject. So defensive. I think it might give you a good insight into who YOU really are. Self discovery is important.
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
thehog said:
The funny thing is the more you you go after me the stupider you look. You've been doing it for sometime now.
.
Part of the problem is this lame thread. It has died multiple times only to be "bumped up" by you with a trollish "update". Your latest trollish bump is one of many other trollish bumps you have so trollishly bumped in this thread's troll laden past. Let this one go Hog. Let it go. Its lame.
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,355
0
0
Anyone got a link to that whitehouse petition? I had forgotten all about that one while I was banned.
 
Polish said:
Part of the problem is this lame thread. It has died multiple times only to be "bumped up" by you with a trollish "update". Your latest trollish bump is one of many other trollish bumps you have so trollishly bumped in this thread's troll laden past. Let this one go Hog. Let it go. Its lame.
Seeing the regulation Lance thread has been closed this is my only option to post updates.

Besides my threads have staying power. Unlike Lance with one ball I can last.

Check out the BMC in disarray thread. It has a life of its own.
 
Jun 3, 2009
287
0
0
thehog said:
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/no-battle-lines-in-the-cancer-ward-20120323-1vpi4.html

This is good news. The people I see who are living with cancer are often apologetic about being sad or not fighting hard enough. It is wonderful to be able to assure them that this is OK. Days of invincibility may be followed by days of helplessness. Or the feelings may alternate within the same minute. This is normal.

It's unrealistic to apply a premium to one feeling over the other, and unreasonable for people to feel apologetic for any of them. My goal is to let them be themselves. In the end, this is all we can hope to control.
Illness and death are not failures. What happens to our bodies is ultimately up to our cells, not our souls. This can be confronting to people who believe their will or their doctor's treatments can rescue them from all scenarios. But it is the truth.

The better we are at accepting the limits of our world, the more easily we can embrace what we have.
Thanks for posting this. Good brief article which I have emailed to few people who won't be reading this forum.
 
scribe said:
Anyone got a link to that whitehouse petition? I had forgotten all about that one while I was banned.
What's the 7-time Tour champ doing hiding away in the team bus? Reminds me of last years Tour..... irrelevant.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrong-visits-paris-roubaix

Armstrong remained within the team bus at the start in Compiègne, avoiding the media, and then traveled with team manager Johan Bruyneel throughout the race. The two stopped at strategic points in front of the peloton to help out with spare wheels in case of punctures. The American was thus on site when Tom Boonen took the victory after having raced the event in front for more than 55 kilometres.
 
Nice summary about "rent -a-quote" Merckx:

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs/blazin-saddles/nice-guy-eddy-031143102.html

Merckx's view on doping was brought back into the public eye following an interview with the London Evening Standard, in which the Belgian great vouched never to have taken performance enhancing drugs during his illustrious career, and stressed his conviction that Lance Armstrong also never doped on his way to a record-breaking seven Tour de France wins.

Merckx, it seems, is a rent-a-quote moveable feast of two-wheeled buffoonery available to adorn the podium of any race for the right price (but not the Tour podium, for that position has been already taken by Bernard Hinault, making Merckx, if you will, the poor man's Badger for the 21st century).

Gone are his cannibalistic instincts; he's now plain old Nice Guy Eddy. And while he may be as cuddly as one of those Credit Lyonnais lions they dish out to the yellow jersey in the Tour, Merckx probably has less sense than a stuffed toy — especially when it comes to talking about the doping habits of today's peloton.

Sixty-six-year-old Merckx — himself facing corruption charges concerning the sale of bikes to the Belgian police force (this really is true) — used the tried-and-tested line that Armstrong would be "crazy" to have done "something so silly" during his career.

Regarding the doping allegations surrounding his own career, Merckx took the same stance that Armstrong has used so often: "I was clean, I know that. Every day there were controls at races."

Don't worry, this week's blog isn't going to open Pandora's Box and probe Messrs Merckx and Armstrong about their "training" habits; Saddles is just going throw in his two cents about Merckx's credibility as a cycling source.
 
thehog said:
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".

But this is where the Livestrong lines become very blurred. The $1000 is going to Livestrong.com or Livestorng.org? How can anyone really tell if the $1000 if for the "for profit" or for the "non-profit" entity? I would assume the .org enity?

Now if true then of that $1000 we know that a rounded 80% goes into "Programs" with the remaining 19% into “Admin/Fundraising”. So now we're down to $800 of the $1000. If we look that total revenue or donations/grants for “Programs” in 2009 was $31,000,000 (rounded). Travel was $2,000,000 and salaries were $6,000,000 and legal bills were a staggering $9,000,000. So if I subtract those figures away from the $37,000,000 I’m left with $14million or 37% of the “Program Fees”.

Therefore for the $1000 Livestrong donation became $800 for Programs only and 37% of this is for “awareness” program which results in $296. The $296 could go anywhere.... We’ll never know if that goes to salaries or bonus awards or to awareness programs but not cancer reseach as the first poster lamely suggests. (Although I think the marketing idea was to create the that very impression)

Now it’s a smart way of marketing a $1700 bike. You think it’s being rolled into the charity but in reality the it’s just funding more of Livestrong expenses. My assumption would be the $700 component goes to Livestrong.com for the manufacturing and distribution of the bike. Having Lance send a twitter about it adds to the feel that’s its “all for cancer”.

Cheap and nasty marketing if you ask me.

And for the life of me when they say $1000 goes to Livestrong I do hope at least this is the "non profit" entity. A simple Google search means you can only buy it from the "http://www.livestrongfitness.com/product/ls28ic/" - Livestrong Fitness.com site which is obviously for profit with the byline: "Join the fight
With each purchase, $1,000 will be donated to LIVESTRONG® to improve the lives of people affected by cancer
" - its the (R) which worries me the most.
Thanks for the link off the USADA thread. I re-read what I wrote sometime ago.

It still applies. The (R) concerns me greatly. But I'll give them the benefit of there doubt that it goes to .org.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY