The Official LANCE ARMSTRONG Thread 2010-2011

[elapid]

he was free to keep his comments to himself. he responded with a snide remark to what i wrote and so i did likewise. if you don't like it, take your own advise and don't read our little discourse. you're free to ignore me, i suggest you do so.

I am free to do what I want and free to read and comment as I please. I am also free to take or reject your advice. That being said, if you have a personal beef with Hugh then you should take it to PMs and not subject us to your pettiness.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I don't understand all the snipping on here today.

Read if you want to, don't read if you don't.

Contribute if you want, don't contribute if you don't.

 

[Digger]

I don't understand all the snipping on here today.
Read if you want to, don't read if you don't.

Contribute if you want, don't contribute if you don't.

F*** you!!!!

 

[Publicus]

The conclusion of the ownership stake comes from a basic understanding of how businesses work.

A company with an estimated net value of over a billion dollars does not just go and give 10% of their stock to a guy (or a charity) for contributing to a new website, marketing, or the use of a domain name.

I could buy a 1% ownership stake... that would have a value of 10 million dollars. That MIGHT be within the realm of reason. 5% would be pushing it (50 million dollars).


You are correct that the Livestrong brand and the LAF exist only because of Lance. But they aren't owned by Lance in any way, and Lance in no way can get the money donated to the LAF or raised by the LAF. While he spearheaded the creation of the LAF, the LAF is not in any way dependent upon him any longer for their existenc (just like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is no longer dependent upon the Gates' for their existance... perhaps you like that comparison more.)

My whole point is that while Lance does profit from his association with the LAF... none of it in any way takes ANYTHING from the charity... or directly from anyone donating to the charity. I'd argue the charity profits 10 times as much from the relationship as Lance does. I don't see a lot his endorsements not being there if he were "just" a 7-time tour winner who recovered from cancer who didn't have a charity. I still think Trek, Nike, Michelob and all his other sponsors would be paying him as much... and the people at livestrong.com would be going to armstrong.com instead. If anything, he'd have gotten a bigger chunk from Demand out of the bargain.

If someone goes to livestrong.com... I don't see ANYWHERE they can actually spend money on anything. Yes, Demand makes money from the advertisements... but it's not like you're getting tricked into opening your wallet thinking that it's going to charity. And the LAF owns a "significant" portion of DemandMedia as well (according to the press release)... so they DO get funds from you visiting the .com site.

I'm not going to argue with Demand Media's own characterization of Armstrong's stake in the company. If they consider it significant, it's significant TO THEM.

As for the".com" site, ad revenue is driving by viewers of the page (see that banner of ads on the right hand side of the screen? cyclingnews.com or whoever owns the site is getting paid when you and I access this site). The trick is DRIVING traffic to the .com site. Same with Team Radio Shack website. It's hosted by . . . livestrong.com. I'm not all that interested in some fight about LAF or whether Lance takes funds from it. I know that he leverages it to make money for himself. And that's why it's nothing like Jerry Lewis and MDA.

 

[Publicus]

And I hope Demand goes public soon. Companies are required to disclose their major stockholders (anyone with more then 5% equity).

I'd be willing to bet... well my entire net worth... that Armstrong wouldn't be listed.

First of all, the real money is made on liquidating your privately held shares at the time they go public. He probably has piggyback registration rights, which means that some portion of his significant stake would be included with the original float to the public.

So while you can make that assertion it does not, in anyway, change the characterization of his stake in Demand Media. I really don't see what you gain from trying to minimize his interest in Demand Media. They say it's significant. He says its significant. You say, not so much... What's the point?

 

[Polish]

It is UNPRECEDENTED that Lance is mocking an implicated Doper.
Lance has known many dopers - but I cannot recall him EVER mocking the doper.

And "The Prince" has not spit in the soup. "The Prince" has not named names.

Lance is mocking him because of the Doping Implication...
What what what?

This is a 8.0 earthquake on the Island of Omerta.

 

[Digger]

It is UNPRECEDENTED that Lance is mocking an implicated Doper.
Lance has known many dopers - but I cannot recall him EVER mocking the doper.

And "The Prince" has not spit in the soup. "The Prince" has not named names.

Lance is mocking him because of the Doping Implication...
What what what?

This is a 8.0 earthquake on the Island of Omerta.

The 2004 Giro d’Italia champ and Lampre team leader is supporting a new anti-doping campaign and has had its slogan tattooed on his left arm. It reads: “I’m doping free.”

“It’s a strong message,” Cunego told La Gazzetta dello Sport. “The idea came to me after reading a letter from a boy named Marco Guadagnini, who races in a white jersey that reads, ‘doping-free.’ I really liked that message. Why not do something? I got in contact Mr. Guadagnini, father of Marco, and together we’ve created a program for us athletes. It will be universal, not just cycling, to show that all sports can change.”



Read more: http://velonews.competitor.com/2008...ad-its-charge-at-the-tour_79053#ixzz0keFgKg8k

 

[Joey_J]

Cunego

LA's comment was pretty soft, not really mocking.

Last year Cunego insinuated that certain riders were doping without providing proof, just the accusation.
Now he finds himself smeared. Who knows, maybe he is clean. I hope so.
But how does it feel being on the other side Damiano?
That’s LA’s point.
Or,
If you live in a glass house, don't throw stones.
Either way, DC had it coming.

 

[Digger]

LA's comment was pretty soft, not really mocking.

Last year Cunego insinuated that certain riders were doping without providing proof, just the accusation.
Now he finds himself smeared. Who knows, maybe he is clean. I hope so.
But how does it feel being on the other side Damiano?
That’s LA’s point.
Or,
If you live in a glass house, don't throw stones.
Either way, DC had it coming.

And this is why Omerta will be safe for years to come. How dare another ride speak out? and no proof...do you think he has no contacts with doctors or doesn't know exactly what's going on in the peleton? Seriously, he's not a fan - he knows the story, the doctors, the treatments etc.

 

[BikeCentric]

LA's comment was pretty soft, not really mocking.

Last year Cunego insinuated that certain riders were doping without providing proof, just the accusation.
Now he finds himself smeared. Who knows, maybe he is clean. I hope so.
But how does it feel being on the other side Damiano?
That’s LA’s point.
Or,
If you live in a glass house, don't throw stones.
Either way, DC had it coming.

Bravo, noble effort at upholding Omerta on the forum. Probably won't fly around here champ, but at least you gave it the old College try.

 

[peloton]

LA's comment was pretty soft, not really mocking.

Last year Cunego insinuated that certain riders were doping without providing proof, just the accusation.
Now he finds himself smeared. Who knows, maybe he is clean. I hope so.
But how does it feel being on the other side Damiano?
That’s LA’s point.
Or,
If you live in a glass house, don't throw stones.
Either way, DC had it coming.

This coming from a guy who tested positive for EPO at least 6 times?
Careful with the stones...

 

[Anonymous]

While a shop named Mellow Jerry's would be hilarious, Lance profits from only the bike shop. Portions of the profits from the sale of laptops, treadmills and other workout equipment go to the LAF. He is just used as marketing.

When I was working with Nike, we were selling more of the Livestrong collection than other apparel (shoes not included) in some ****'s Sporting Goods stores. 100% percent of that goes to the LAF, now they have worked a deal that a specified amount goes the LAF annually (which is actually more than what is from the Livestong collection). I think you misunderstand the relationship.

So it is your contention that there is no profit for Nike, Hp, whoever sells the treadmills, etc? That is what you are saying? Mmmmmmkay...

 

[Phlakaton]

how do you people live with "YOURSELF?" you are so full of hatred. so angry. you most likely have NEVER met Lance Armstrong. Have never talked to him. Got to know him. BUT - you have this super hatred for what he's done for cancer. Take a good look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself why you have so much hate for someone. It's wasted energy. He doesnt impact your daily life. It's like people getting all ape over Tiger Woods. He doesnt have a single thing to do with like 99.9% of people's daily lives. Does it matter that much that you spend your time getting crazy over it? Proving your points means nothing except to your own ego.

It pains me to even write this because it's contradictory to what I'm saying!

Wow.

 

[kurtinsc]

First of all, the real money is made on liquidating your privately held shares at the time they go public. He probably has piggyback registration rights, which means that some portion of his significant stake would be included with the original float to the public.

So while you can make that assertion it does not, in anyway, change the characterization of his stake in Demand Media. I really don't see what you gain from trying to minimize his interest in Demand Media. They say it's significant. He says its significant. You say, not so much... What's the point?

10-20 million dollars IS significant.

It's still a very small percentage of the company.

This isn't coming from a cycling perspective... this is coming from a finance perspective. In a billion dollar company, any percentage above 1% is considered a significant ownership stake. Hell, Bill Gates only owns about 7.5-7.7% of Microsoft... that's EXTREMELY significant.

 

[red_flanders]

Lance does have a website called LanceArmstrong.com - it doesnt get visited that often.

Here is a graph of the 3 different sites.

Lances personal website is hard to see in that graph - it is the rather flat line along the bottom.

Nothing cuts through bull**** like data, does it?

 

[theswordsman]

Lance does have a website called LanceArmstrong.com - it doesnt get visited that often.

Here is a graph of the 3 different sites.

Lances personal website is hard to see in that graph - it is the rather flat line along the bottom.

Yeah, when I started researching and then blogging about Lance's comeback, that website was a resource. It had more content then, but now most of it has relocated and the links lead to other websites, so there's no need to pass through that one. But the day Doug Uhlmann convinced Lance to sign up for twitter, I found it out from that website. And when there were new photos from the wind tunnel, or training, they showed up there first. Then came Livestrong.com and all the other resources. Check back to September 2008 and you should see some hits.

 

[Publicus]

10-20 million dollars IS significant.

It's still a very small percentage of the company.

This isn't coming from a cycling perspective... this is coming from a finance perspective. In a billion dollar company, any percentage above 1% is considered a significant ownership stake. Hell, Bill Gates only owns about 7.5-7.7% of Microsoft... that's EXTREMELY significant.

Still don't know what your point is here. From a finance perspective, you are trying to back into a number without any quantitative data, which is, in layman's terms, an exercise in futility. He has a significant stake in Demand Media and therefore likely has a significant stake in it's earnings. You can keep trying to distract from that reality with this quixotic quest to determine his stake, but the fact remains: he is COMPENSATED FOR DRIVING TRAFFIC TO THE LIVESTRONG.COM site. Let it go. You don't have a winning argument here.

 

[Ferminal]

how do you people live with "YOURSELF?" you are so full of hatred. so angry. you most likely have NEVER met Lance Armstrong. Have never talked to him. Got to know him. BUT - you have this super hatred for what he's done for cancer. Take a good look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself why you have so much hate for someone. It's wasted energy. He doesnt impact your daily life. It's like people getting all ape over Tiger Woods. He doesnt have a single thing to do with like 99.9% of people's daily lives. Does it matter that much that you spend your time getting crazy over it? Proving your points means nothing except to your own ego.

It pains me to even write this because it's contradictory to what I'm saying!

Wow.

Haven't you made the same post for the last three days?

God, talk about not having something better to do...

 

[altark123]

It is UNPRECEDENTED that Lance is mocking an implicated Doper.
Lance has known many dopers - but I cannot recall him EVER mocking the doper.

And "The Prince" has not spit in the soup. "The Prince" has not named names.

Lance is mocking him because of the Doping Implication...
What what what?

This is a 8.0 earthquake on the Island of Omerta.

I thought it had to do with the stomach bug issues, Cunego took a shot at Lance or some such business and now Lance retaliated.

 

[Cal_Joe]

Here is a graph of the 3 different sites.

Wow, I am surprised that NOT ONE of the handbag bunch was able to suggest that the rising trend for livestrong.com was INDISPUTABLE PROOF of continued EPO use.

You guys are slacking off.

 

[BroDeal]

Wow, I am surprised that NOT ONE of the handbag bunch was able to suggest that the rising trend for livestrong.com was INDISPUTABLE PROOF of continued EPO use.

You guys are slacking off.

Armstrong's use of EPO has already been proved with six positive tests. There is not much more to say about it. What is really surprising is that the crotch sniffers cannot come up with a wild, crack brained explanation about the data that clearly shows the relative importance of the supposed charity compared to the for profit side of the operation.

 

[Ferminal]

Wow, I am surprised that NOT ONE of the handbag bunch was able to suggest that the rising trend for livestrong.com was INDISPUTABLE PROOF of continued EPO use.

You guys are slacking off.

Handbag bunch?

Is that a joke or an insult?

Either way, another useless post by someone who disagrees with the thread content but cannot form a decent argument - resulting in a post which attempts to disrupt the continuity of the thread.

 

[Phlakaton]

Armstrong's use of EPO has already been proved with six positive tests. There is not much more to say about it.

Am I that out of touch? When and where was this proven? Pardon my dust. I just havent heard anything about all that - seriously.

 

[Cal_Joe]

Handbag bunch?

Is that a joke or an insult?

Either way, another useless post by someone who disagrees with the thread content but cannot form a decent argument - resulting in a post which attempts to disrupt the continuity of the thread.

As far as being a joke or an insult, search this forum for the reference.

“Decent argument” in this thread is defined as any post that bashes LA, other posters, or ignites a typical feeding frenzy amongst the handbag bunch, resulting in lost portions of dorsal fins and possibly losing one of those razor sharp teeth..

“Continuity of the thread” - you have got to be kidding me. The inference that this thread has any continuity is just another sad reflection on the folks around here that have their blinders strapped on every morning before they sit down at the computer.

I have been lurking here since the forum opened, only “joined” last August, and I continue to amazed and appalled at the lack of respect for what is essentially an unmoderated forum.

Most posts here are by a very small group. My estimate is that over 97.46 percent of the posts are made by less than 30 folks, and because they do not respect the rules of an unmoderated forum, this forum has evolved (or devolved) into a classic example of groupthink.

Many posters here ignore the forum rules regarding personal attacks, any mention of doping only in the Clinic, etc, etc. Because the forum is unmoderated, there are effectively no rules, and what becomes of a group that realizes that there are no penalties for breaking rules?

Over the last few weeks I have seen some members essentially (and literally) saying “Thanks, I’ll be getting my coat now.” This is a direct result of the status quo freaking out over anyone who does not buy into the group mentality.

This forum will continue to have very low participation of individual posters unless posters respect the forum rules. In one of my previous posts, I posted a link to something I found on the web, a Twitter post that essentially said this forum is ten old ladies arguing over who hates LA more.

If that’s your idea of fun, well you’ve got it. If you want to see this forum grow through the input of many other people, clean up your act.

Well with all that said I do believe I’ll be getting my coat now

 

[auscyclefan94]

Lance does have a website called LanceArmstrong.com - it doesnt get visited that often.

Here is a graph of the 3 different sites.

Lances personal website is hard to see in that graph - it is the rather flat line along the bottom.

How do you get onto this crap?