UCI vs Livestrong ?

Oct 1, 2012
28
0
0
Will the USADA decision ultimately lead to a UCI/livestrong confrontation? Which organization has more power/money/influence? How does lance save livestrong without throwing UCI under the bus? UCI could potentially kill livestrong first by agreeing with USADA reasoned decision, at which point livestrong will be faced with several dozen major lawsuits from organizations/sponsors who will want their money back.
 
Apr 9, 2009
976
0
0
Rousel said:
Will the USADA decision ultimately lead to a UCI/livestrong confrontation? Which organization has more power/money/influence? How does lance save livestrong without throwing UCI under the bus? UCI could potentially kill livestrong first by agreeing with USADA reasoned decision, at which point livestrong will be faced with several dozen major lawsuits from organizations/sponsors who will want their money back.
No one is going to ask for money back from a cancer charity.
 
Mar 10, 2009
1,296
0
0
The UCI and Livestrong have no relationship except if Livestrong is a sponsor. UCI have no authority over anything Livestrong does.
 
Oct 1, 2012
28
0
0
Unless I'm connecting the dots incorrectly, the livestrong brand was built on the back of armstrongs 7 fraudulent tdf wins......
 
Oct 4, 2012
5
0
0
cineteq said:
people have a hard time understanding this...or ignoring it... :(
And the sickening part, that while not provable, his own cancer could have been a result of his own PED use, since there are thoughts he used since the age of 16ish. If and when the mass public connects these dots
I imagine LIVESTRONG will be in big trouble.

I mean as a smoker I know that I am put myself at a much higher risk, who knows what the side effects of all this drug use are, pretty sure its never been tested since you aren't supposed to do it.

I feel really bad for a lot of people who have duped by this guy, and only hope that his foundation truly does help some people in their time of need. At least then a little bit of good comes out of all this.
 
Oct 1, 2012
28
0
0
Master50 said:
The UCI and Livestrong have no relationship except if Livestrong is a sponsor. UCI have no authority over anything Livestrong does.

it is extremely hard to differentiate between lance and livestrong. even yesterday we hear that NIKE, a livestrong sponsor, 'may have' paid 500k to UCI to cover up a positive armstrong drug test.......
i really think livestrong is more influential than the UCI.
two possible outcomes if this battle heats up:

1) death of uci/cycling
2) death of livestrong
 
Apr 9, 2009
976
0
0
To me, the more immediate problem for Livestrong is that it hired its own lobbyist to go to Washington and persuade lawmakers to investigate and/or defund USADA. They use the same law firm (Patton Boggs) that defended Armstrong personally, so you a charity directly paying to protect Armstrong under the guise of cancer lobbying (and lobbying fees are a significant expense on Livestrong's balance sheets).
 
Oct 2, 2012
152
1
0
Kennf1 said:
To me, the more immediate problem for Livestrong is that it hired its own lobbyist to go to Washington and persuade lawmakers to investigate and/or defund USADA. They use the same law firm (Patton Boggs) that defended Armstrong personally, so you a charity directly paying to protect Armstrong under the guise of cancer lobbying (and lobbying fees are a significant expense on Livestrong's balance sheets).
As long as the lobbyists begin each conversation with the question "Are you aware of cancer?", then all's good.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
D-Queued said:
Exactly - uniballer is half-price.

Dave.
the dipstick tho has experience and consistent use at Yellow Rose however. Could be classified as expert in the experience measure.
 
Sep 30, 2009
117
0
0
Can someone point me to a decent thread about how Livestrong is involved in all of this? Just can't quite connect the dots. It's obviously a front, but, just wondering how it was used?
 
Jul 19, 2010
741
1
0
Rousel said:
UCI 1, livestrong 0

this can only mean that UCI will side with USADA decision
Everything that's been happening is gearing towards the fact that everyone, including Armstrong himself, has accepted USADA's report as the ironclad proof and true story. It's only natural for UCI to follow that up and strip Armstrong off everything from 1998. It'd be counter-logical for UCI to contest it, and just delay cycling from "moving on".
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS