The Next Step--Target Letters

[Bilirubin]

http://www.charitywatch.org/articles/cancer.html[/url]

Does having a relatively bad year in 2005 make it a bad charity?

But you're not even bothered about whether its a good or bad charity - you resent the boom for the charity over the last two years due of the comeback world tour.

This is why some of the behaviors are sociopathic. Why can't the charity be good but Armstrong have doped at the tour? It's not mutually exclusive.

 

[Bilirubin]

This is perfect PR strategy. Try and smear the other side with what you are guilty of...

Lance is a sociopath. He is a textbook case.

There are a lot of cancer patients who would disagree with you.

Look, though Race Radio's behaviors maybe unhealthy and show paranoid and sociopathic tentencies, he's probably not a real sociopath across the board. That's why I did not declare he was. I'm sure he's nice to his family and friends and believes he is a good person. He's just got a bit hooked on stalking Lance and become deluded about what exactly is 'fighting the good fight'.

It's the same with Armstrong. He has a complex and flawed personality. It is possible for him to be a hardass when it comes to cycling and business, but also to use that drive to do real good for charity. To simply believe everything is a con and fraud, and someone who behaves in a way you don't like must be suffering from a very rare personality disorder, is simplistic and stupid. The truth is, someone can't have the emotional intelligence required to succeed in high level sport and have such a psychological condition. You shouldn't throw that smear around. Can't the case be made without throwing in such crap?

 

[MD FACG FACP]

Bilirubin your handle is interesting. But your posts are not. A simple Lance fan boy who doesn't want to see his hero fall. Backing a man who has lied to millions of cancer patients. I'm sure there are those that support Mr. Madoff as well.

 

[D-Queued]

Does having a relatively bad year in 2005 make it a bad charity?

But you're not even bothered about whether its a good or bad charity - you resent the boom for the charity over the last two years due of the comeback world tour.

This is why some of the behaviors are sociopathic. Why can't the charity be good but Armstrong have doped at the tour? It's not mutually exclusive.

You are in denial. This is not the long river in Egypt.

Most charity experts say it's one of the best out there

This is clearly false. When someone points that out to you, your response is to call them a sociopath.

In 2005, the charity was ten years old. Is that not enough time for it to have demonstrated its financial capabilities?

You have tried this spin before, and it is baseless. Most experts appear to agree on concerns with regards to Livestrong - conflicts of interest, high expense ratio... etc.

"This blurs the lines between the foundation and its charitable mission, and the personal gain of its founder,'' said Ken Berger, president and executive director of Charity Navigator. "It's mixing two purposes in a way that smells of a conflict of interest. The most precious thing a charitable organization has is the public's trust, and things like this put a ***** in that.''

Daniel Borochoff, founder and president of the American Institute of Philanthropy in Chicago, said he was uncomfortable with the arrangement, especially because Armstrong remains chairman of the board of the foundation. "Nonprofits have to be concerned not only with actual conflicts of interest, but the appearance of conflicts of interest,'' Borochoff said.

Dave.

 

[Bilirubin]

Bilirubin your handle is interesting. But your posts are not. A simple Lance fan boy who doesn't want to see his hero fall. Backing a man who has lied to millions of cancer patients. I'm sure there are those that support Mr. Madoff as well.

Another one doing it for the cancer patients, huh?

 

[Race Radio]

BPC is back folks.

 

[Bilirubin]

You are in denial. This is not the long river in Egypt.



This is clearly false. When someone points that out to you, your response is to call them a sociopath.

In 2005, the charity was ten years old. Is that not enough time for it to have demonstrated its financial capabilities?

You have tried this spin before, and it is baseless. Most experts appear to agree on concerns with regards to Livestrong - conflicts of interest, high expense ratio... etc.



Dave.

Again, so you were delighted about the money boom because of the comeback that happened after 2005? No you were not.

With a huge organisation there is going to be some problems here and there along the way, things they can do better, and with LiveStrong having an international reach it's naturally going to incur higher expenses than national charities, but most experts agree it's a top charity. An expert in the field says:

Livestrong has been a catalyst for better cancer care and education across the globe. "It's a force to be reckoned with," says Leslie Lenkowsky, a professor at Indiana University's Center on Philanthropy. Livestrong's help line, guidebooks, and website helped more than 400,000 people last year. Its social-media efforts reach about 3 million supporters. It has pioneered programs here and abroad for survivors; worked to unify the fractured cancer community; and instigated a worldwide crusade, which includes the United Nations and the Clinton Global Initiative, to make the world's No. 1 killer a health-care priority. "I can't think of an organization with the breadth of activity that the foundation has," says Dr. Larry Shulman, chief medical officer at the renowned Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, "and that includes the American Cancer Society."

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/150/can-livestrong-survive-lance.html

If you don't like doping at the tour, criticise the doping at the tour. Don't start a propaganda campaign against his charity. It's two seperate issues.

 

[washedup]

If you don't like doping at the tour, criticise the doping at the tour. Don't start a propaganda campaign against his charity. It's two seperate issues.

The issue people are upset about is the fact that LA used Livestrong as a PR mask for his bad habits and fraudulent activities.

 

[Merckx index]

The truth is, someone can't have the emotional intelligence required to succeed in high level sport and have such a psychological condition. You shouldn't throw that smear around. Can't the case be made without throwing in such crap?

After all the relevations of the past couple of decades, I think you could make the opposite argument, that one cannot succeed at a high level in professional sports without being somewhat pathological. What do you call it when someone knowingly breaks the rules, then looks organizational officials, media, family and friends dead in the eyes and says, I never doped?

This isn't just about Lance, of course. There are Floyd, Tyler, Vino, Rasmussen, Rico, now maybe Contador, and on and on and on. You don't consider this pathological behavior? I sure do. I came to the conclusion in the middle of Tyler's case that if he really had been transfusing that this was sociopathic behavior, given the great lengths he was going to proclaim his innocence. And Floyd, too, regardless of the good his recent confessions may do. Raising legal defense funds from duped supporters? How much lower can you get? If LA is making money, both for himself and for his cancer foundation, off the same kind of lie, isn't that about as bad?

Most professional sports--any of those where performance can be significantly enhanced by certain substances or procedures--have become one gigantic lie. If this were just boys and girls playing the game of who's the best, one could maybe dismiss it as overreaching. But given that livelihoods are at stake it has to be considered criminal. People go to the slammer for years for stealing less money than is routinely stolen by doping.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

It's a delusion. How many followers does Armstrong have on twitter? How many fans does he have around the world? He doesn't need people to go on cycling message boards that appeal to only a small section of people. It's a misunderstanding of how PR firms work. You and others have convinced yourselves by repetition this is true.

Hi BPC, I know I have shown you this before...... tell Mark its a refresher course.

This is CSE, Lance management companies address: 98 San Jacinto Blvd. Suite 430. Austin, Texas 78701
And this is Public Strategies Incorporated address: 98 San Jacinto Blvd.Suite 1200. Austin, TX 78701

I highlighted this before - what Public Strategies do with Social Media:

We help our clients build plans for utilizing social media in a way that works with their brand identification and communication goals. We also help them identify potential risks and strategies should any unwelcome scrutiny or attention occur.

But when I went to recheck that today, http://www.pstrategies.com/index.php/social-media-engagement.htm it is no longer on their website, strange, huh?

Here is how quickly they react to news for their clients:

Beginning every morning at 5:00 a.m. Eastern Time, a team of Public Strategies media and public opinion experts examine the day’s media and public opinion resources, including international and national print and broadcast media, trade publications and newswires, blogs and chat rooms, interest group Web sites and company Web sites.

This is Bill Mashek, who works for Public Stratgies in Washington.
Bill also was also spokesman for Trek when they did their media spin when dropping the LeMond brand:
For Immediate Release, April 8, 2008 Contact: Bill Mashek, 920.478.2192 x12755

And more recently when Bill announced that Trek had co-operated with a request to hand over documents to the Feds:

Investigators requested documents from Trek Bicycle Corp. early in July and company officials complied fully, said Bill Mashek, a spokesman for the Waterloo, Wis.-based company.

 

[flicker]

Juan Pelota has done more for health,International cyclingsport, American Cycling-sport than any other individual.
Very sorry that individuals here consider him a douche or not a nice guy.
FYI many people have considered OSAMA, BIN or Madoff nice guys.
Please refer to Vanity Faire on those issues.

Lance is not our savior, but if others want to crucify him, today is the last day of Pentecost, the beginning of the new church year, hey march old Lance up Cavalry hill. I bet when he gets buried in a cave when the boulder is rolled away on Easter, he will be gone, someones dream shattered, and my Lord will be greater than ever.

 

[tempo e tempi]

I'm no fan, but sometimes some good can come out of a bad thing. As we say in the music business, sometimes a Nazi can make you cry with his violin playing. Charity Navigator gives the LA Foundation three stars out of four. http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=6570 Ah, that my symphony orchestra had such a rating.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Again, so you were delighted about the money boom because of the comeback that happened after 2005? No you were not.

With a huge organisation there is going to be some problems here and there along the way, things they can do better, and with LiveStrong having an international reach it's naturally going to incur higher expenses than national charities, but most experts agree it's a top charity. An expert in the field says:



http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/150/can-livestrong-survive-lance.html

If you don't like doping at the tour, criticise the doping at the tour. Don't start a propaganda campaign against his charity. It's two seperate issues.

Propaganda, eh?

Ok BPC - you said experts, yet (again) you quote one person "Dr. Larry Shulman"........ can you name some other 'experts' since they appear plentiful?

Or would your use of "experts' be viewed as 'propaganda'?

 

[Bilirubin]

This isn't just about Lance, of course. There are Floyd, Tyler, Vino, Rasmussen, Rico, now maybe Contador, and on and on and on. You don't consider this pathological behavior?

I think that's much more to do with creating their own moral framework and culture. What drugs we consider illegal was all set for us 100s of years ago. It just so happens we decided on allowing alcohol, caffeine and tobacco, but not allowing other things that have no worse side effects. There is nothing set in stone. Pro-cyclists simply created their own moral bubble where things that are unacceptable to outside society were okay with them, therefore they had no trouble lying about it. I think that is necessarily sociopathic, it's more a cultural groupthink.

For any sport, but especially for high level sport, you need a very good undestanding of how people around you are feeling, who is bluffing and who is not, and to read a race and determine the right strategy. People with serious personality disorders don't have the subtleties in their emotional outlook to do that. They'd also have so many social problems they would never get up to that level.

 

[jimmypop]

It's a delusion. How many followers does Armstrong have on twitter? How many fans does he have around the world? He doesn't need people to go on cycling message boards that appeal to only a small section of people. It's a misunderstanding of how PR firms work. You and others have convinced yourselves by repetition this is true.

That's one view. Alternatively, maybe I've worked with and for firms like this in the past, and I know what I'm talking about. That's the correct view.

 

[Merckx index]

I'm no fan, but sometimes some good can come out of a bad thing. As we say in the music business, sometimes a Nazi can make you cry with his violin playing.

But you still prosecute him for war crimes.

 

[jimmypop]

Sh*t. Sucked in by BPC. Thumbs down for me today.

 

[tempo e tempi]

But you still prosecute him for war crimes.

Unquestionably. Just leave his charity.

 

[flicker]

Propaganda, eh?

Ok BPC - you said experts, yet (again) you quote one person "Dr. Larry Shulman"........ can you name some other 'experts' since they appear plentiful?

Or would your use of "experts' be viewed as 'propaganda'?

I would never insult your intelligence here Herr Doktor. Some here consider LIVESTRONG and employees are employing some Josef Goebbels type of characters and that is a distortion of truth.

LIVESTRONG does good. Lance does good. Hating LIVESTRONG and Lance is an abhorant activity, simply abhorant.

 

[sartain]

Hi BPC, I know I have shown you this before...... tell Mark its a refresher course.

This is CSE, Lance management companies address: 98 San Jacinto Blvd. Suite 430. Austin, Texas 78701
And this is Public Strategies Incorporated address: 98 San Jacinto Blvd.Suite 1200. Austin, TX 78701

I highlighted this before - what Public Strategies do with Social Media:

But when I went to recheck that today, http://www.pstrategies.com/index.php/social-media-engagement.htm it is no longer on their website, strange, huh?

Here is how quickly they react to news for their clients:



This is Bill Mashek, who works for Public Stratgies in Washington.
Bill also was also spokesman for Trek when they did their media spin when dropping the LeMond brand:
For Immediate Release, April 8, 2008 Contact: Bill Mashek, 920.478.2192 x12755

And more recently when Bill announced that Trek had co-operated with a request to hand over documents to the Feds:

Your usual fine handy work, Dr., and one of the reasons why I LOVE the clinic!!!

It's pointless however to try and convert the deaf, dumb and blind followers of LA as they will follow him right off the cliff, and all because of the C word. And judging by his recent JP spanish remark on Twitter, he still believes that he is bullet proof.

 

[Race Radio]

It is fun to watch BPC avoid any engagement on Astroturfing and respond with his usual ad hominem.

Astroturfing is a increasingly common political tactic that Public Strategies has perfected in their main practice of Political Consulting.

Of course the guys at the Wiki have a easy to understand overview

Astroturfing denotes political, advertising, or public relations campaigns that are formally planned by an organization, but are disguised as spontaneous, popular "grassroots" behavior.
The goal of such campaigns is to disguise the efforts of a political and/or commercial entity as an independent public reaction to some political entity—a politician, political group, product, service or event.

Like many Political Media Consulting firms Public Strategies has been a successful with a number of Austroturf operations, one of the more infamous was Hands Off the Internet

 

[Merckx index]

I think that's much more to do with creating their own moral framework and culture. What drugs we consider illegal was all set for us 100s of years ago. It just so happens we decided on allowing alcohol, caffeine and tobacco, but not allowing other things that have no worse side effects. There is nothing set in stone. Pro-cyclists simply created their own moral bubble where things that are unacceptable to outside society were okay with them, therefore they had no trouble lying about it. I think that is necessarily sociopathic, it's more a cultural groupthink.

I personally have a very liberal attitude towards drugs,and am sympathetic to the notion of legalizing PES, despite all the problems that would cause. But when you agree to certain rules, then systematically violate them, it goes beyond "cultural groupthink". Athletes do not have a deeply held belief that using these substances is morally right, because if they did, they would confess and take their punishment when caught, using that opportunity to state their case. And UCI and other organizations that may be aiding and abetting doping would not work to promote an image of doping-free if they likewise believed at a deep level that doping was necessary and unavoidable. They are trying to have their cake and eat it, too. They want to maintain this culture at the same time they rake in all the financial awards that result when the public is duped or encouraged to believe that this culture does not exist. That is pathological to me.

For any sport, but especially for high level sport, you need a very good undestanding of how people around you are feeling, who is bluffing and who is not, and to read a race and determine the right strategy. People with serious personality disorders don't have the subtleties in their emotional outlook to do that. They'd also have so many social problems they would never get up to that level.

Read something like "The Sociopath Next Door". Some psychiatrists would argue that sociopaths are found in abundance in the highest levels of business, government, academia, etc. They are far more capable of blending into society than many give them credit for. If they weren't, they wouldn't be so capable of manipulating others so effectively to their own ends.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I would never insult your intelligence here Herr Doktor. Some here consider LIVESTRONG and employees are employing some Josef Goebbels type of characters and that is a distortion of truth.

LIVESTRONG does good. Lance does good. Hating LIVESTRONG and Lance is an abhorant activity, simply abhorant.

You're right Flicker.... livestrong does good.... its gets former employees etc nice jobs in Public Strategies, people like:

Hillary Schmidt- Before joining Public Strategies, Schmidt held an internship with the Lance Armstrong Foundation in Austin.

Kim Cooper- Before joining Public Strategies, Cooper was the aide to the CEO and board liaison of the Lance Armstrong Foundation.

Caitlin Cunniff - "Before joining Public Strategies, Cunniff served as marketing and public relations intern at the Lance Armstrong Foundation in Austin"

Mark McKinnion - He currently serves on the boards of the Lance Armstrong Foundation and Change Congress, an organization dedicated to campaign finance reform, and lectures at the JFK School of Government at Harvard University and the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin

 

[TubularBills]

You're right Flicker.... livestrong does good.... its gets former employees etc nice jobs in Public Strategies, people like:

Hillary Schmidt- Before joining Public Strategies, Schmidt held an internship with the Lance Armstrong Foundation in Austin.

Kim Cooper- Before joining Public Strategies, Cooper was the aide to the CEO and board liaison of the Lance Armstrong Foundation.

Caitlin Cunniff - "Before joining Public Strategies, Cunniff served as marketing and public relations intern at the Lance Armstrong Foundation in Austin"

Mark McKinnion - He currently serves on the boards of the Lance Armstrong Foundation and Change Congress, an organization dedicated to campaign finance reform, and lectures at the JFK School of Government at Harvard University and the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin

Nepotism personified for personal gain - not unlikely also the top 4 in the April 1st, 2011 unemployment line at the Austin Chapter of the EDD.

 

[Race Radio]

You're right Flicker.... livestrong does good.... its gets former employees etc nice jobs in Public Strategies, people like:

Hillary Schmidt- Before joining Public Strategies, Schmidt held an internship with the Lance Armstrong Foundation in Austin.

Kim Cooper- Before joining Public Strategies, Cooper was the aide to the CEO and board liaison of the Lance Armstrong Foundation.

Caitlin Cunniff - "Before joining Public Strategies, Cunniff served as marketing and public relations intern at the Lance Armstrong Foundation in Austin"

Mark McKinnion - He currently serves on the boards of the Lance Armstrong Foundation and Change Congress, an organization dedicated to campaign finance reform, and lectures at the JFK School of Government at Harvard University and the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin

Of course they will hire former Livestrong employees. Where else will you find skill propagandists in Austin?