The Official LANCE ARMSTRONG Thread 2010-2011

Page 62 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Anonymous

Guest
kurtinsc said:
Look... I'll make one more try then I'll give up.

100% of the Livestrong brand is owned by the LAF. Every... single... bit.

There are no "parts" of the livestrong brand. It really appears you don't know the difference between a brand and a company.

There is no way to buy anything with "livestrong" on it without the profits going to the LAF. There is no way to "accidentally" donate to Demand Media.

Is Demand profiting off the "livestrong" brand? Does it bring in advertising and sponsorships? Absolutely. And they paid the LAF for the right to use the brand with stock. The LAF recieves funds in the form of dividends from this exchange.



If you want to claim anyone has ever tried to donate a penny to the LAF and it's ended up with Demand Media... I'd be happy to see whatever proof you've got. But honestly I don't see Lance moving money to demand media being realistic. 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. If he were stealing money from the LAF, he's probably doing it much more directly. I don't think he'd take dollars from the LAF to make RIchard Rosenblatt (the majority stakeholder in Demand Media) a bunch of money... he'd want to make LANCE money.

It almost sounds like you think Lance owns most of Demand. Demand Media owns 60 websites. Exactly how much of an ownership stake do you think a person associated with one of them would get?

Who gets the money from the "Livestrong" treadmills? I mean, I know they claim that nobody profits, but I would like to see the books on that personally...

Seems like lots of people are confused: http://www.articlesbase.com/health-...estrong-treadmills-right-for-you-1566851.html

Part of the proceeds go to the "Livestrong Foundation." I mean, yea, I understand they got it wrong about the "Livestrong Foundation" and all, but what I want to know is where the excess profit goes? (other than Johnson Health) I mean, you can try and tell me that Lance does not profit from the sale, but I would suggest you are full of sh!t if that is your line.
 
Feb 14, 2010
2,202
1
0
I'll toss in a random question. Lance announced during the Tour de France that any money made from the sale of Livestrong bands during the event would go to cancer organizations in France. Does anyone know if that actually happened, how much it amounted to, or which French organizations received it?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
http://www.livestrongfitness.com/category/livestrong-treadmills/

Oh wait, I see...sale of the "Livestrong" fitness machines ensures that a minimum $4 million will go to LAF...only, I am just wondering what the real percentage of profit is...I mean, that sure is some slick marketing of cancer going on there, and sorry, but I find it a bit disgusting personally...you know, profiting from a disease that kills people and all. Me, I will continue to give my money to organizations with a bit less in the way of conflict as to who gets what, and what the percentage of profit is and all that. I don't see any "Susan G. Koman" kitchen appliances, so I think maybe they have their heads on a little straighter than does Mr Armstrong as far as what the priorities of their foundation are...you know, cause it is kind of confusing trying to figure out who is profiting from Lance's cancer...and well, all the other people with cancer that they rely on to tug at your heart string so you will buy a $1700 treadmill...
 
Nov 17, 2009
2,388
0
0
Thoughtforfood said:
Who gets the money from the "Livestrong" treadmills? I mean, I know they claim that nobody profits, but I would like to see the books on that personally...

Seems like lots of people are confused: http://www.articlesbase.com/health-...estrong-treadmills-right-for-you-1566851.html

Part of the proceeds go to the "Livestrong Foundation." I mean, yea, I understand they got it wrong about the "Livestrong Foundation" and all, but what I want to know is where the excess profit goes? I mean, you can try and tell me that Lance does not profit from the sale, but I would suggest you are full of sh!t if that is your line.

Not hard to find an answer. It's Johnson Health Tech North America.

Lance is definitely profiting from the Lance Armstrong Foundation. But I think many of you aren't quite getting how he goes about it. He follows the same pattern.

1. The LAF enters into a licensing agreement with a company (in this case Johnson Health Tech), to use the livestrong brand. The LAF gets a percentage of the sale of the product for letting them use the brand, and in some cases (like with Demand), a percentage ownership in the company. They are licensing the livestrong brand to bring in revenue for their charity.

2. Lance then gets hired as a "spokesperson" for the company. He gets paid fees/salary/equity as compensation for publicizing the product. He got equity in Demand Media this way (in exchange for a 4 year contract to provide content and to advertise livestrong.com).


Many famous people get paid to speak for a product. Look to the right and you'll see several cyclists doing just that. What makes Lance's method different is that in some cases the LAF is also selling the Livestrong brand to the same companies.

YOu can look at that in two ways.

1. It's kind of slimy that he's profiting by hitting up the same sponsors that are paying for the livestrong brand.

2. His "coming along for the ride" is what gets the livestrong brand on all of these products, thus earning the LAF money it wouldn't have otherwise.


I think it's probably a bit of both personally, but I can understand either view. What is silly is thinking that there is some sort of confusion about the livestrong brand name and who profits from it (contracutally at least). Lance signed over 100% ownership in the brand to the LAF. There is no confusion... if you see the livestrong brand on something then you know the LAF was paid for the use of it.

Might Lance also be getting paid to market the product? Absolutely. But he's getting paid for his image and endorsement, not for the livestrong brand.
 

Prodigy

BANNED
Feb 22, 2010
94
0
0
I read in a translated interview last year that Armstrong's comeback year raised in excess of $200 million for his charity.

Is that figure right? If true that is an amazing sum. A lot of it must have come from the governments he met I presume.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
kurtinsc said:
Not hard to find an answer. It's Johnson Health Tech North America.

Lance is definitely profiting from the Lance Armstrong Foundation. But I think many of you aren't quite getting how he goes about it. He follows the same pattern.

1. The LAF enters into a licensing agreement with a company (in this case Johnson Health Tech), to use the livestrong brand. The LAF gets a percentage of the sale of the product for letting them use the brand, and in some cases (like with Demand), a percentage ownership in the company. They are licensing the livestrong brand to bring in revenue for their charity.

2. Lance then gets hired as a "spokesperson" for the company. He gets paid fees/salary/equity as compensation for publicizing the product. He got equity in Demand Media this way (in exchange for a 4 year contract to provide content and to advertise livestrong.com).


Many famous people get paid to speak for a product. Look to the right and you'll see several cyclists doing just that. What makes Lance's method different is that in some cases the LAF is also selling the Livestrong brand to the same companies.

YOu can look at that in two ways.

1. It's kind of slimy that he's profiting by hitting up the same sponsors that are paying for the livestrong brand.

2. His "coming along for the ride" is what gets the livestrong brand on all of these products, thus earning the LAF money it wouldn't have otherwise.


I think it's probably a bit of both personally, but I can understand either view. What is silly is thinking that there is some sort of confusion about the livestrong brand name and who profits from it (contracutally at least). Lance signed over 100% ownership in the brand to the LAF. There is no confusion... if you see the livestrong brand on something then you know the LAF was paid for the use of it.

Might Lance also be getting paid to market the product? Absolutely. But he's getting paid for his image and endorsement, not for the livestrong brand.

(in my modified post, I caught the Johnson thing)

Oh, I would suggest that in the minds of the consumers, they have no idea of the profit split on that stuff. None. In fact, I'd bet most of them believe that all the profit goes to cancer research and sick little babies an' sh!t...

I would also suggest that it is kind of slimy to profit off of the sympathy and sorrow people have because of cancer. I mean, in sales, the key component is for a buyer to purchase on emotion, not knowledge, and what better way to make a buck than to draw at the heartstrings with images of little kids with tubes in their noses, and frail bald people in hospital gowns holding on to the stand for their drip...its a win/win for the producer!

Surely even you can see the moral hazard in all of this.
 
kurtinsc said:
Look... I'll make one more try then I'll give up.

100% of the Livestrong brand is owned by the LAF. Every... single... bit.

There are no "parts" of the livestrong brand. It really appears you don't know the difference between a brand and a company.

There is no way to buy anything with "livestrong" on it without the profits going to the LAF. There is no way to "accidentally" donate to Demand Media.

Is Demand profiting off the "livestrong" brand? Does it bring in advertising and sponsorships? Absolutely. And they paid the LAF for the right to use the brand with stock. The LAF recieves funds in the form of dividends from this exchange.


If you want to claim anyone has ever tried to donate a penny to the LAF and it's ended up with Demand Media... I'd be happy to see whatever proof you've got. But honestly I don't see Lance moving money to demand media being realistic. 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. If he were stealing money from the LAF, he's probably doing it much more directly. I don't think he'd take dollars from the LAF to make RIchard Rosenblatt (the majority stakeholder in Demand Media) a bunch of money... he'd want to make LANCE money.

It almost sounds like you think Lance owns most of Demand. Demand Media owns 60 websites. Exactly how much of an ownership stake do you think a person associated with one of them would get?

Again the point being missed is one of deception and misleading the public. Point in case was the TDU in 2009. There is no discernible difference between Lance Armstrong the person, Livestrong.com and Livestrong.org. Therefore when Lance comes to the TDU under the guise of the Livestrong banner but in reality is being paid personally and not wanting to admit the fact is deceptive. When he sets up the "Global Cancer Summit" in Dublin under the Livestrong banner but is paid personally for his appearance how and why will people ever know what portion of the money goes to himself or the companies? They don't.

Secondary to this point is expenses. Its been listed that the foundation has an extremely high ratio spent on marketing than that distributed into the charitable functions. The expenses go on Armstrong flying around the world promoting Livestrong but in truth its promoting himself.

The last point is that Livestrong promotes Lance which he then sells himself to Micolob. Nike and any other brand which pays him personally. He profits greatly from Livestrong - in essence its his own free personal marketing company paid by those thinking they are donating to cancer research.

The entire operation is sham and we all know it.

To this day I still can't understand what Livestrong actually does for anyone outside of Lance Armstrong. If anyone has a real life story please inform me because I can't see it.
 
Mar 18, 2009
1,003
0
0
Sorry to interrupt this fascinating argument but progressor, I quite clearly didn't specify league or union, I simply said there had been a positive in 'rugby' - do fact check before you reply.

Any monies pledged by governments will have been budgeted long before Armstrong came back to the sport - they're simply buying into the Armstrong brand.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
thehog said:
Again the point being missed is one of deception and misleading the public. Point in case was the TDU in 2009. There is no discernible difference between Lance Armstrong the person, Livestrong.com and Livestrong.org. Therefore when Lance comes to the TDU under the guise of the Livestrong banner but in reality is being paid personally and not wanting to admit the fact is deceptive. When he sets up the "Global Cancer Summit" in Dublin under the Livestrong banner but is paid personally for his appearance how and why will people ever know what portion of the money goes to himself or the companies? They don't.

Secondary to this point is expenses. Its been listed that the foundation has an extremely high ratio spent on marketing than that distributed into the charitable functions. The expenses go on Armstrong flying around the world promoting Livestrong but in truth its promoting himself.

The last point is that Livestrong promotes Lance which he then sells himself to Micolob. Nike and any other brand which pays him personally. He profits greatly from Livestrong - in essence its his own free personal marketing company paid by those thinking they are donating to cancer research.

The entire operation is sham and we all know it.

To this day I still can't understand what Livestrong actually does for anyone outside of Lance Armstrong. If anyone has a real life story please inform me because I can't see it.

Crystal. Clear. Precise.
 
Thoughtforfood said:
Crystal. Clear. Precise.

The LAF in concept is a commendable organisation. However last year it spent 77% of its revenues on expense. I'm at a loss how they still exist under realm of a charitable organisation. The merging of LAF to Livestrong was the beginning of the end from the charity aspect. i.e. the logo went from LAF to Livestrong in big bold logo as we know with the small byline "Lance Armstrong Foundation" to ensure or mislead most people that they are one of the same.


Shameless.

Spot the difference:

laf_logo.gif


and

nike-livestrong-gallery-1.jpg
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
kurtinsc said:
....
It almost sounds like you think Lance owns most of Demand. Demand Media owns 60 websites. Exactly how much of an ownership stake do you think a person associated with one of them would get?

To answer your question - "significant" - as said by DM CEO Richard Rosenblatt.
______

This is the part I have problems with in your posts...
kurtinsc said:
....... 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.
Are you suggesting Lance is "paid' for his obligations to the cancer cause?
If so how much - and can another charity or group offer more and get him as their exclusive spokesman? Maybe the NRA - or the tobacco industry?
 

Prodigy

BANNED
Feb 22, 2010
94
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Are you suggesting Lance is "paid' for his obligations to the cancer cause?
If so how much - and can another charity or group offer more and get him as their exclusive spokesman? Maybe the NRA - or the tobacco industry?

No I think he is saying Armstrong owns a stake in the company that runs the website.

I don't think LA would be interested in working for those other companies. Can we really see him raising hundreds of millions in one year for something other than cancer?
 

Prodigy

BANNED
Feb 22, 2010
94
0
0
It's interesting that he doesn't have an Armstrong brand. He could make hundreds of millions for himself if he did. I suppose that might distract from the cancer issue.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Prodigy said:
Why would I answer any of your baseless opinions when I asked you a question twice and you didn't reply......

So - how many times have you been banned from this website using different usernames?
 
Oct 29, 2009
1,095
0
0
thehog said:
To this day I still can't understand what Livestrong actually does for anyone outside of Lance Armstrong. If anyone has a real life story please inform me because I can't see it.

I met a woman randomly with a Livestrong laptop and asked if she worked with the Foundation. To make a long story short. She said no and explained she was diagnosed with cancer several years ago. She said the typical forms of treatment weren't really helping. Nothing really seemed to work and they exhausted every option. Out of desperation, they contacted the Foundation and they set them them up with new doctors in the area that provided new forms of treatment they weren't aware of. She went into remission and seems to be doing quite well.

I know it's just one story, but thought it served a point.

EDIT: Maybe it was just a coincidence, but she credits the new treatment with her recovery. Treatment they may not have discovered without the LAF.
 

Prodigy

BANNED
Feb 22, 2010
94
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
---------

Sorry I'm only talking about the topic tonight. People just don't want to read that other crap. For what it's worth I did not get answers to many of my questions on that issue so we're all in the same boat.
 
May 26, 2009
4,114
0
0
Prodigy said:
I don't think LA would be interested in working for those other companies. Can we really see him raising hundreds of millions in one year for something other than cancer?

Yes can you guess the answer _ _ _ _ _ / _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
 
Dr. Maserati said:
Why would I answer any of your baseless opinions when I asked you a question twice and you didn't reply......

So - how many times have you been banned from this website using different usernames?

It is because Chunky is hoping that everyone will forget that he is a dangerous kook who might snap and harm someone at any moment.
 
Mar 13, 2009
683
0
0
kurtinsc said:
Not hard to find an answer. It's Johnson Health Tech North America.

Lance is definitely profiting from the Lance Armstrong Foundation. But I think many of you aren't quite getting how he goes about it. He follows the same pattern.

1. The LAF enters into a licensing agreement with a company (in this case Johnson Health Tech), to use the livestrong brand. The LAF gets a percentage of the sale of the product for letting them use the brand, and in some cases (like with Demand), a percentage ownership in the company. They are licensing the livestrong brand to bring in revenue for their charity.

Bang on. Licensing Fee would be anywhere between 3 & 17.5% with high margin items such as gym equipment in the upper end. I wonder what other Licensing Deals the LAF/Livestrong/Whatever have entered into. Its generally
considered easy money since you're not doing any of the work yourself. The only resources you take up is in approving all the products and marketing material.
 
Mar 17, 2009
2,295
0
0
thehog said:
Again the point being missed is one of deception and misleading the public. Point in case was the TDU in 2009. There is no discernible difference between Lance Armstrong the person, Livestrong.com and Livestrong.org. Therefore when Lance comes to the TDU under the guise of the Livestrong banner but in reality is being paid personally and not wanting to admit the fact is deceptive. When he sets up the "Global Cancer Summit" in Dublin under the Livestrong banner but is paid personally for his appearance how and why will people ever know what portion of the money goes to himself or the companies? They don't.

Secondary to this point is expenses. Its been listed that the foundation has an extremely high ratio spent on marketing than that distributed into the charitable functions. The expenses go on Armstrong flying around the world promoting Livestrong but in truth its promoting himself.

The last point is that Livestrong promotes Lance which he then sells himself to Micolob. Nike and any other brand which pays him personally. He profits greatly from Livestrong - in essence its his own free personal marketing company paid by those thinking they are donating to cancer research.

The entire operation is sham and we all know it.

To this day I still can't understand what Livestrong actually does for anyone outside of Lance Armstrong. If anyone has a real life story please inform me because I can't see it.

on jan 20, 2009 i was getting ready for work when i coughed and approximately 1 tablespoon of of blood came up. i coughed again and produced about the same amount. it was bright red arterial blood, and i knew that wasn't good. i called my sister-in-law, who is a general surgeon, and told her what had happened. she made a couple of calls and told me to go to university general e.r., they were waiting for me. i got there and they sent me for a chest x-ray. the x-ray showed a mass so they sent me for a ct scan. the ct scan showed a mass that appeared to be on my pulmonary artery, and the fear was that it was going to blow. one ambulance ride later and i was at st. luke's and sent to coronary icu. i spent three days there and between all the tests, biopsies and such i sat in bed with my smart phone learning about cancer. as i cyclist i was familiar with it so i went to livestrong.org and began my education.

for me it was and is a great educational tool. from first fears to survivor issues, there is so much good information there, and for me the survivor stories were a really nice lifeline. the stories are great when you feel like complete ****, for me they helped me see what was possible. i expect it's different for some, but for me it was a tremendous help. with cancer you face so many issues, and they do a good job of addressing things that you just don't know you'll face.

when they decided that i wasn't in immediate danger of death from the artery bursting, i was discharged. 3 days later i had a pet scan which showed the cancer had not spread. unfortunately it wasn't operable with out very risky surgery, but they felt like if the could shrink it away from the artery they could remove the lobe of my lung and get it. i did 3 months of chemo, then had surgery to remove half my lung. unfortunately the tumor had wrapped partly on the artery, so i still had micro margins, but i was almost completely clean. i did 7 weeks of radiation, along with another 2 months of chemo, and as of october 2, 2009 i am considered cancer free. i had blood work 2 weeks ago and it was fine, and i have another ct scan scheduled for friday. i have a radiation burn on what is left of my lung, and the fear now is that it could become cancerous, but my oncologist says that he doesn't think it's likely. i made my one year in january and with the type of cancer i had that is huge.

in october i rode the livestrong challenge. i was still very anemic and the radiation burn was just starting to bother me, but it was a great experience. as slow as i was, and as much as it hurt, i can honestly say i've never been so honored and so happy to ride with a group of people. there are many survivors, lots with visible scars from the beatings they took in treatment, and it is awe inspiring to be in that group. one man has his leg amputated at the hip, and when i saw that it put my loss in a new light. i knew all through it that i was suffering very little compared to most people, especially given the treatment regimen they used. as the dr. said, you're young and i hit you as hard as i possibly could to give you a good chance, and while it's miserable to do, i stood it remarkably well. but some of the riders i saw made me ashamed for my self pity.
there were groups and singles riding in honor of someone in treatment, and many in memory of loved ones. i felt so much gratitude for those people, there's no way i can put into words what i felt that day. as i've said before, i didn't go to ride with lance armstrong i went to ride because i could. when i came to the finish line there was a lane for survivors, and as i approached the line i heard them call my name, and people applauded and i cried, for the shame, and the pain, and the joy of living and riding my bike again.

that's what livestrong did for me.
 
Aug 25, 2009
397
0
0
thehog said:
The LAF in concept is a commendable organisation. However last year it spent 77% of its revenues on expense. I'm at a loss how they still exist under realm of a charitable organisation. The merging of LAF to Livestrong was the beginning of the end from the charity aspect. i.e. the logo went from LAF to Livestrong in big bold logo as we know with the small byline "Lance Armstrong Foundation" to ensure or mislead most people that they are one of the same.


Shameless.

Spot the difference:

laf_logo.gif


and

nike-livestrong-gallery-1.jpg

Yes I know you hate, but try to be honest.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=6570

77% was spent on what it exists to provide according to charity navigator.It's not topnotch, but it seems it's a passable charity on those ratings.

Were you being deliberately dishonest??
 
Oct 29, 2009
1,095
0
0
Excellent post Patrick. That's the kind of inspirational story that can't be represented in statistics and pie charts. So glad to hear you're fully recovered.
 
Aug 25, 2009
397
0
0
bianchigirl said:
Sorry to interrupt this fascinating argument but progressor, I quite clearly didn't specify league or union, I simply said there had been a positive in 'rugby' - do fact check before you reply.

I've never heard of Rugby League being referred to solely as rugby. When you do that you are referring to union - perhaps you could just admit you made a mistake,it'd be a nice break from your rabid anti LA venom.
 
Feb 14, 2010
2,202
1
0
progressor said:
I've never heard of Rugby League being referred to solely as rugby. When you do that you are referring to union - perhaps you could just admit you made a mistake,it'd be a nice break from your rabid anti LA venom.

Seriously? We can say cycling, tennis, football, baseball, track, curling, skiing, skating, and have it apply to everything from five year olds to the best in the world, but "rugby" doesn't include everyone in the sport? And you use that premise as the basis for a personal attack, because if you've never heard something that's in common usage around the world, it can't be correct?

Ignore list
 
Status
Not open for further replies.