The Official LANCE ARMSTRONG Thread 2010-2011

[Moose McKnuckles]

Yep, the discussion of other people's previous histories is getting really tiresome. Either ignore the person or let it go. It's time to get on with it.

 

[ravens]

Yep, the discussion of other people's previous histories is getting really tiresome. Either ignore the person or let it go. It's time to get on with it.

I find the fact that there are a couple people who cannot resist the urge to respond to such a disruption aggravating. RR and BYOP, if you can't ignore it then take it to pm and it will eventually wander off to haunt someone else's house.

Normally, even with a recent 'bannee', I didn't mind the engagement. But this is too disruptive. STOP FEEDING HIM. The baiting isn't even that clever; his level of humorlessness is where I draw the line.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

My problem with your opinion is that at first you wrote this....

.... He's got an extreme minority stake in demand... it's not like he owns the company. He got paid a relatively small ownership stake in order to advertise and contribute content to the website. ...

and then when I quoted Richard Rosenblatt of Demand Media saying that the equity stake taken was "significant"

First, "significant" doesn't mean what you think it means.

Really - significant means... 4. Fairly large in amount or quantity: significant casualties; no significant opposition.

If you have a problem with the word "significant" then take it up with Richard Rosenblatt.

-----
Then you went on to write this:

....

With Lance, it works this way:

A company will enter an agreement with the LAF to use the livestrong brand on a product (such as the treadmills discussed earlier). The company gets publicity for their product by doing this, hoping that this will lead to increased sales. The LAF gets money... either a set fee for using the brand for a period of time or a certain amount of money per unit sold.

Lance is hired separately to do advertisments. He films commercials, gets his picture taken for print adds and makes testimonial statements about the product, and gets paid to do so. This is the same as any celebrity endorsement.

Now the company probably feels that they get more bang for their buck with Lance because he reinforces the dollars they spent on the Livestrong brand. It probably wouldn't work as well if they spent the same amount of money on Cadel Evans because he doesn't have any connection to the Livestrong brand. So Lance is definitely profiting from his connection to the LAF. But it's not taking any money from the LAF... the LAF would not recieve more money if Lance didn't do those commercials. In fact, it's possible they might recieve less, since paying the LAF might be they way companies can get Lance to do commercials.

It's kind of slimy to profit from the connection to a charity like that... but it also probably helps the charity rather then hurting it. I certainly can't blame the charity for using the connection to increase their fund raising.


Lance isn't an exclusive spokesman for the LAF. They don't pay him a dime. He's a spokesman for companies like Trek and Nike, who also happen to have purchased some rights to use the Livestrong brand in different scenarios.

I agree with the highlighted remark - but I am curious to know have you anything that shows your above claim on how the LAF and Lance operate?

Or are you relying on your previous experience as a lawyer for non-profits?

 

[Anonymous]

You know, this thread serves a nice purpose of confining most of the "junk" to one thread where it is easy to avoid rather than having it spread everywhere. Just sayin...

+1, let it roll, keeps the slime off of other threads.

 

[Hugh Januss]

I find the fact that there are a couple people who cannot resist the urge to respond to such a disruption aggravating. RR and BYOP, if you can't ignore it then take it to pm and it will eventually wander off to haunt someone else's house.

Normally, even with a recent 'bannee', I didn't mind the engagement. But this is too disruptive. STOP FEEDING HIM. The baiting isn't even that clever; his level of humorlessness is where I draw the line.

The point is, if he really is this same person who has been banned multiple times he should not be allowed to come back and stay until things degenerate to this point. Continuing to start up new accounts after having your last 3, 5, or 7 banned should be enough to get banned again, once it becomes obvious that that is what's going on.

 

[ravens]

The point is, if he really is this same person who has been banned multiple times he should not be allowed to come back and stay until things degenerate to this point. Continuing to start up new accounts after having your last 3, 5, or 7 banned should be enough to get banned again, once it becomes obvious that that is what's going on.

He's gone for now (Prodigy is banned). But please do not respond once it is clear this is a troll. He starves without the responses.

 

[thehog]

Dude I was working with Nike around the time they unveiled the 10//2 Livestrong collection. 100% percent of the profits go to the LAF. It says it all over the labels and shoeboxes. I looked at them everyday. Link Those expenses you mention are the costs to produce such merchandise.

Thanks Dude. Next time you use a link use one that references a story in the last 5 years at least. I mean, what the? A story from 6 years ago about the now defunct 10/2 range of clothing is neither useful or relevant and don't call me dude.

However lets look a little closer. The term expenses get used a lot on the Livestrong sites but notice it doesn't state "after manufacturing expenses" which would imply the cost to make or produce the product is paid but after that profit goes to LAF but they use "after expenses" which includes marketing which is promoting King Di8k and him flying his jet around the world pumping carbon emissions into the air.

I believe Kimmage once tried to ask him this question but was shot down in flames for questioning God.

So a more recent link: http://store.nike.com//index.jsp?country=US&lang_locale=en_US#l=shop,pdp,ctr-inline/cid-1/pid-285020

Tell me where on the Nike site which profit goes to Livestrong.org/.com/LAF from these Livestrong trainers? I'm lost to know. I'd hate to think an unsuspecting person would purchase them under the pretence of the of the profit was going to support LAF, I mean marketing LAF, I mean market Livestrong, errr Armstrong.

 

[ravens]

....and don't call me dude.
However lets look a little closer. The term expenses get used a lot on the Livestrong sites but notice it doesn't state "after manufacturing expenses" which would imply the cost to make or produce the product is paid but after that profit goes to LAF but they use "after expenses" which includes marketing which is promoting King Di8k and him flying his jet around the world pumping carbon emissions into the air.

I believe Kimmage once tried to ask him this question but was shot down in flames for questioning God.

If I can't call people 'dude' I may as well delete my account.

Yes, these fundraisers bury the skimming of the revenues as part of the expense. He certainly isn't a pioneer in creative accounting. I really lose the connection between his business dealings and his cycling. As the current vernacular goes, "I'm just not feelin' it." I expect nothing less from celebrities profiting from their celebrity. Call me cycnical. Or Cynical Dude. Or King Dude Cynic....

.

 

[patricknd]

This is a huge side of Cancer where awareness, or at least some guidance, can really help.

When I went to visit my friend who was dying last summer we mainly spent the 4 days driving around filling out papers. Doctors, Lawyers, insurance, making videos so his son could see him when he grows up, planning the services. It was confusing, strange, overwhelming.

i hear you. you immediately think about the treatment but the reality of the paperwork side hits quick. i'm still not sure if the treatment or the paperwork was the toughest part. the only plus on the paperwork was there are fewer side effects.

 

[Race Radio]

I find the fact that there are a couple people who cannot resist the urge to respond to such a disruption aggravating. RR and BYOP, if you can't ignore it then take it to pm and it will eventually wander off to haunt someone else's house.

Normally, even with a recent 'bannee', I didn't mind the engagement. But this is too disruptive. STOP FEEDING HIM. The baiting isn't even that clever; his level of humorlessness is where I draw the line.

You are correct, after all that is his goal. I will put him on ignore....which of course will mean he steps it up.

 

[Publicus]

He's gone for now (Prodigy is banned). But please do not respond once it is clear this is a troll. He starves without the responses.

My guess is that Cassandra will now become active.

 

[Hugh Januss]

We can debate this question through the next seven BPC/Prodigy reincarnations and we still won't come to a conclusion that we will agree on.
For every person (or dude) who was personally helped by the foundation there exists an instance where it is obvious that LA has used his position for personal enrichment. It is just the way it is, he has done good and bad at the same time, and he is not going away in the forseeable future. Unless it's to a French jail?

 

[MacRoadie]

So a more recent link: http://store.nike.com//index.jsp?country=US&lang_locale=en_US#l=shop,pdp,ctr-inline/cid-1/pid-285020

RR, you're missing the point entirely. You need to read the right sidebar to understand:

"Lance Armstrong is the closest any man has ever come to superhuman. After surviving cancer, Lance went on to become the Tour de France Champion seven years in a row. This four-time Male Athlete of the Year has lived one of history’s most phenomenal stories."

 

[patricknd]

We can debate this question through the next seven BPC/Prodigy reincarnations and we still won't come to a conclusion that we will agree on.
For every person (or dude) who was personally helped by the foundation there exists an instance where it is obvious that LA has used his position for personal enrichment. It is just the way it is, he has done good and bad at the same time, and he is not going away in the forseeable future. Unless it's to a French jail?

i'd say your about dead nuts on with that one.

 

[MacRoadie]

So, the clock starts running at approximately 9:30am, PST, 02/24/10. As a relatively new member of this forum, how long does it usually take for your resident troll to re-appear?

 

[Race Radio]

We can debate this question through the next seven BPC/Prodigy reincarnations and we still won't come to a conclusion that we will agree on.
For every person (or dude) who was personally helped by the foundation there exists an instance where it is obvious that LA has used his position for personal enrichment. It is just the way it is, he has done good and bad at the same time, and he is not going away in the forseeable future. Unless it's to a French jail?

Yup.

Luckily Doug Ulman is around or it might be a bit different. Everything I have heard about him is very positive.

 

[thehog]

We can debate this question through the next seven BPC/Prodigy reincarnations and we still won't come to a conclusion that we will agree on.
For every person (or dude) who was personally helped by the foundation there exists an instance where it is obvious that LA has used his position for personal enrichment. It is just the way it is, he has done good and bad at the same time, and he is not going away in the forseeable future. Unless it's to a French jail?

My last comment to this point before I shut myself up; If a person has x amount they spend on charity per year and they go off and buy a nice new yellow pair of Livestrong trainers from Nike believing that they are helping when all they are doing is assisting the purchase of a new ranch in Aspen - then there is a big problem. The $130 spent on the trainers could have actually gone to helping somebody not helping the ranch get bigger. Ya see my point? Its deception. The Nikestore site is a classic example that all the Livestrong's just look the same.

 

[Polish]

I found both the LiveStrong.org and Livestrong.com websites full of hope, healthful advice, inspiration, and lots and lots of informative links.

Did not find any spite or hate or jealousy or nastiness at all...well, there were a couple trolls on the forums there sigh.

In the the FAQ link on the .com site - it explains the difference between the two sites. One is for profit, the other non-profit. 2009 was a tough year for most "for profit" and "non-profit" organizations. Would not suprise ME if the LiveStrong ones did OK last year however.

patricknd - scary story, you are one tough cookie.

Anyway, Lance also has a webite for his bike shop:
http://www.mellowjohnnys.com/theshop.php

Lance is one busy dude lol - a modern day Odysseus.

 

[Race Radio]

So, the clock starts running at approximately 9:30am, PST, 02/24/10. As a relatively new member of this forum, how long does it usually take for your resident troll to re-appear?

This one is very determined. He has bragged often of being able to change his IP address in seconds and often shows back up again quickly.

 

[ravens]

So, the clock starts running at approximately 9:30am, PST, 02/24/10. As a relatively new member of this forum, how long does it usually take for your resident troll to re-appear?

It depends on when the library allows him back on their internet access computers.

 

[MacRoadie]

It depends on when the library allows him back on their internet access computers.

I heard Ranjeet (aka Randy) at the internet cafe next to 7-11 is easily bribed.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

thanks ya'll.

Do you know what Patrick.... your post from yesterday made me mad - it has really pissed me off.

I have gone toe to toe with 'Kurtinsc' - and I think it's fair to say we respectfully disagree on a few points.
However - I think the LAF and what Doug Ulman (a 3 time cancer survivor!!) and the people who work at the LAF have done is simply magnificent and a great resource. My skepticism should not be looked at as to dismiss their contribution and achievements.

I have checked some sites to see if the 'LAF' is a well run charity- as with all things, looking at year to year figures can look as though for some years it is not achieving its financial goals - but looking at its overall impact I believe it is a well run charity.

We should not forget that when Lance was diagnosed with cancer in 1996 that there was little talk of testicular cancer .
Amongst men it was simply not discussed.
For highlighting his own struggle witht testicular cancer Lance is to be commended. For getting back on a bike he is to be commended, for living the life of a Professional cyclist he is to be commended, for finishing 15th in the Ruta de Sol in his first year back he had me doing cartwheels.

But what has happened over the last 2 years in my personal opinion is disgraceful.

Setting up a 'for profit' site on health and well being is a smart and innovative move - however Lance should not in any way, however small, personally profit - all profits should be directly routed to the LAF, simple as.
And before someone says 'legal issues' Lances right handman isBill Stapelton a lawyer, and quite simply he does what Lance tells him to do.

Lance announced his return to cycling in September 2008 - however it was to have been an exclusive in Vanity Fair.
He had called the journalist to his home (in August '08)- the journalist at one point believes LA's cancer has returned- but no, the invitation was to announce "something huge, I’m going back to professional cycling. I’m going to try and win an eighth Tour de France" .. not because of cancer awareness but because "..It’s not a secret. I mean, the pace was slow."

Ultimately - it is my view that Lances return had little to do with 'cancer awareness' - if it was then he should do his 'twitter rides' in every major city, getting their PMs or Presidents to ride too. Point to point from one cancer centre to another and charge people say $10 dollars to ride - with the proceeds going to those local charities.
This would have both a local and ultimately the global impact that Lance said his return would create.

Some other key points from that interview:
• To insure his return to the Tour he has called French President Sarkozy"I’ve already put a call in to him".
• The Global Conference is scheduled for Paris in July- “France is an important country... So you start there, and obviously you’re at the hub of Europe. And you can have tons of involvement from leaders there [and] why wouldn’t you have the president of the United States there?”
• However, the 'Global Conference' was in Dublin, Ireland - the Irish Prime Minister - Taoiseach - didn't even attend and he is based a mile away from where the conference was held!
• The 'Global Conference' is held just after Lance competed in a shortened Tour of Ireland where he received a large appearance fee.
• Lance posts a video prior to the Giro d'Italia – to rid Italy of the stigma of Cancer, but then stops talking to the press when they highlight his $2million appearance fee.


Patrick, your posts on this thread have done more in ‘raising awareness’ about this despicable disease than Lances globe trotting of the last 2 years.
I know you wrote previously that you were struggling with ‘survivors guilt’.
My observation is that you didn’t get cancer – cancer got you. But because you understand your body you sought help immediately, because you are well liked you were able to network with others to seek the correct treatment. And because you had looked after yourself physically the Doctor was able to put you on an aggressive treatment.
That’s not luck – that was cancers mistake in picking you……….

 

[kurtinsc]

My problem with your opinion is that at first you wrote this....
and then when I quoted Richard Rosenblatt of Demand Media saying that the equity stake taken was "significant"
Really - significant means... 4. Fairly large in amount or quantity: significant casualties; no significant opposition.

If you have a problem with the word "significant" then take it up with Richard Rosenblatt.

-----
Then you went on to write this:

I agree with the highlighted remark - but I am curious to know have you anything that shows your above claim on how the LAF and Lance operate?

Or are you relying on your previous experience as a lawyer for non-profits?

A 1% stake in a large company is significant. It's also small.

Again... demand media is worth in excess of 1 billion dollars based on the information available (I'm not sure how much in excess... it's a private company so you can't just look up the stock price multiplied by the number of shares, but business articles valued it at over a billion dollars the last time they raised an additional 100 million of venture capital for new purchases.

1% of a billion dollar company is 10 million dollars worth of stock. Giving someone 10 million dollars is "significant". It's also a relatively small percentage of ownership.

The point is that every dollar Lance "steals" from the LAF to Demand media is not going to net him a dollar. It's going to net him some small percentage of a dollar. A 10% stake (a HUGE ownership stake in a company), would only net him 10 cents on the dollar. The person making the most money from that would be Rosenblatt... the majority shareholder.

If Lance is stealing from the LAF... he'd be an absolute IDIOT to do it through Demand Media. He'd be making all of the venture capitalists and Rosenblatt lots of money, but relatively little would get in his hands. From a business perspective it makes absoultely no sense.

As for how Lance and the LAF operate... it's pretty evident by the fact Lance is a paid spokesman/endorser of every product bearing the Livestrong brand. It's pretty clear he's collecting checks for the companies that are paying the LAF to use the Livestrong brand.

But it's also clear he's not collecting checks from the LAF directly... or if he is it's hidden extremely well in their financial documents (which are public domain since it's a non-profit).

 

[kurtinsc]

Maserati, I do want to point out that I don't in any way disagree with you on the "cancer awareness" thing with Lance. That was total garbage.

My point is that the misdirection people have with the livestrong brand (especially about the websites) bothers me. The livestrong brand funnels money to the LAF... ONLY. Yes, Lance does have sponsorship deals with some of the companies that pay LAF for "livestrong". The fact that he's inking those deals with companies that also pay for the livestrong brand may be viewed negatively (he's profiting off his charity) or positively (without him coming along as a sponsor the charity might not get that deal). I think the truth is in the middle, but I'm okay with either opinion.

But I think people claiming he's using deception to funnel money from the LAF to Demand Media... a company that he's got a minority stake in... are insane. He's making 5-10 cents on a dollar profit that Demand makes TOPS... and that's assuming a divident equal to 100% profit is being paid out. I would guess his actual ownership percentage is much smaller (somehow I think Rosenblatt and the venture capitalists who contributed nearly 800 million dollars in capital hold the vast majority of ownership).

I'm not claiming Lance is a good guy. I'm not claiming everthing he does is ethical. But I am claiming the claims that because there is a livestrong.org that's non-profit and a livestrong.com that's for-profit, Lance is misleading people into paying him money when they thought they were paying the charity are completely bogus. The whole idea makes no sense from a dollars and cents perspective and doesn't fit the information that's available from the LAF (who's records are largely public) or from Demand Media (who's records are very private).

There are plenty of ways to bash Lance. I think most of them are valid. I don't think going after the livestrong brand or the LAF charity is a valid one at all... I think it's people who don't like Lance attacking simply because he founded the charity in question.

 

[ImmaculateKadence]

Thanks Dude. Next time you use a link use one that references a story in the last 5 years at least. I mean, what the? A story from 6 years ago about the now defunct 10/2 range of clothing is neither useful or relevant and don't call me dude.

However lets look a little closer. The term expenses get used a lot on the Livestrong sites but notice it doesn't state "after manufacturing expenses" which would imply the cost to make or produce the product is paid but after that profit goes to LAF but they use "after expenses" which includes marketing which is promoting King Di8k and him flying his jet around the world pumping carbon emissions into the air.

I believe Kimmage once tried to ask him this question but was shot down in flames for questioning God.

So a more recent link: http://store.nike.com//index.jsp?country=US&lang_locale=en_US#l=shop,pdp,ctr-inline/cid-1/pid-285020

Tell me where on the Nike site which profit goes to Livestrong.org/.com/LAF from these Livestrong trainers? I'm lost to know. I'd hate to think an unsuspecting person would purchase them under the pretence of the of the profit was going to support LAF, I mean marketing LAF, I mean market Livestrong, errr Armstrong.

My last comment to this point before I shut myself up; If a person has x amount they spend on charity per year and they go off and buy a nice new yellow pair of Livestrong trainers from Nike believing that they are helping when all they are doing is assisting the purchase of a new ranch in Aspen - then there is a big problem. The $130 spent on the trainers could have actually gone to helping somebody not helping the ranch get bigger. Ya see my point? Its deception. The Nikestore site is a classic example that all the Livestrong's just look the same.

Apparently the relationship has changed. This is news to me also. An article from 2008:

In an unprecedented move, 100 percent of Nike’s profits from the entire LIVESTRONG collection will go to the Lance Armstrong Foundation (LAF).

It has been that way since Nike began producing the wristbands. However, as of January 29, less than a month ago. This is the relationship:

The new strategy includes consistent financial contributions from Nike to LIVESTRONG, including international expansion for the collection, starting in July 2010. It also features a guaranteed annual payment and the potential for additional funding as sales from the collection grow.

This is a change from the current variable amount US-only funding strategy where 100 percent of the profits go to LIVESTRONG.

So basically, they are taking the line global and donating a set amount to the LAF, and apparently, they expect this deal to allow for even more in donations to the LAF

“Nike has helped raise more than $80 million for LIVESTRONG in the fight against cancer and today’s announcement opens an exciting new chapter in our partnership,” said Scott MacEachern, GM of Nike’s LIVESTRONG Collection. “Having the ability to grow the collection internationally, reach more people and ensure more consistent contribution to LIVESTRONG’s efforts is an honor we take very seriously.

Now will you provide a link to support your assertions that Livestrong merchandise sales are funding only Lance's ranch.

Sources:
Link
Link