USADA - Armstrong

[webvan]

It was reported so it must be? The fact that we now know it was not exclusive does not call into question the amount as well? Maybe it was 800k or 400k or 1.2MM, don't believe everything you read.

How do we now know it was not exclusive?

 

[thehog]

How do we now know it was not exclusive?

The misconception here is that Ferrari only made money from Armstrong. Not correct. Armstrong was indeed exclusive to Ferrari and also allowed his team-mates have access. Where Ferrari made his real money was selling his services to other sports. It was known Armstrong was his client and winning year after year. That was a very attractive selling point to other sports persons and teams. 800k is nothing in terms of what some football teams were willing to pay.

 

[webvan]

ok, so there's nothing to show it was not exclusive cycling wise, which is what matters as far as LA is concerned.

 

[rhubroma]

True. The US is in a bad place right now on many levels. I don't want to get political, but the moral and ethical middle ground doesn't exist for people with money and power. If you stand up for what is fair, you will be destroyed. It happens all the time. To somebody like Armstrong, teamwork means doing things his way. If it's not done his way, then you're not a team player. The 2009 Tour was a perfect example. There are corrupt people in power all over the US, especially in sports, who manage to convince people that if you don't go along with them, then you're negative, or a hater. I just don't understand how people don't see the reality.

Corruption has existed at all levels, throughout history, whenever big money has been involved. Modern sport began in late XIX century England as a gentleman's activity, where notions of fair play and honorability were, as hypocritical as it may have been, viewed as natural aspects of identity to the social class for whom such recreation was intended. Then, with increased workers' wages, sport soon became transformed into a recreational activity to which the middle and lower classes could have access. It became more democratic and, as a result, gained in popularity; and here the first inkling that there could be big money in sport. Sponsorship, professionalism, the British inspired first Olympics soon followed thereafter. So, too, did "looking to get an edge."

Yet there has remained (still today as propaganda) in the ethos of sport that original conception of "gentlemanliness," "fair-play" and "honorability," which in many ways must be disseminated to keep up the image everybody wants to see, however illusory. With the wars both hot and cold between nations in the 20th century, sport even became overt state propaganda at the international and Olympic spectacles, to demonstrate the predominance of a particular ideology, race or "way of life": thus Nazi-Fascism over civilization, democracy over socialist dictatorship (and vice versa) communism over capitalism (and vice versa), etc. Things remained somewhat "naïf" in the doping world, apart from the amphetamines, until the 68 Olympics, which transformed sport through more scientific doping methods by the introduction of blood doping and anabolic steroids. Next, inevitably, came anti-doping, which is always chasing the science of doping to keep up with new regulatory tests to detect drugs which have already been in circulation and so used with impunity.

Difficult indeed how people don't see the reality in sport, given this background, which demonstrates that as an opium of the mass it has ever been as Martial described it: panem et circensis. The problem today is we lived in a doped society. Our economic model is doped. Our consumer model is doped. Finance is doped. Happiness and depression are doped. Given this spectrum of being condemned to growth, efficiency, to win ever more, to always surpass the last record, sales, buy a bigger house, new car (even though last years is fine), it is easy to discern what’s wrong with the world and why everything keeps getting worse. The human ambition to make more money.

 

[BotanyBay]

Great post!



You're right. Personally I confronted this dilemma in Jr. High. I'm not kidding. I was a very strong runner/athlete at that time and my teammates parents would try to talk to me about this and I gathered they were impressed.

I always thought kissing up to a 13 year old was nuts and at least kind of confusing.

Bottom line, I recognized early on that being on the winning team has very little to do with anything except uh, being on the winning team.

Jeez, that "being picked last for the team" has incredible and long lasting effects on people, which many carry on into their later careers. Frigging crazy.

This about sums it up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWf3A9KN0Ms&feature=youtube_gdata_player

 

[Polish]

In the impossibly unlikely event that the ASO would strip TdF Titles from Lance - what would happen to all the bonus money paid out by ASO for the win? That money went to the now defunct Tailwind I believe. Shared amongst the team members and others. ASO could not possibly ask for a refund, could they? Who would pay it back?

 

[Big Doopie]

Lance pays World Class Lawyers big bucks. Lance pays big bucks for taxes. Lance makes big buck donations. Lance lives in a big buck world.

Ferrari is THE best expert in Pro Cycling Training. The best. Big Bucks. Certainly you are not suggesting Lance used 800,000 dolars worth of dope?
That is a lot of Dope Big Doopie.

$800,000 to enable the greatest fraud in sports history and keep quiet about it, while ensuring that no direct rival benefit from his expertise, seems pretty cheap actually.

particularly when you think about the millions armstrong was raking in -- and only raking in because of ferrari.

it really seems like quite a small amount. maybe it went up as the years went by. this article was from 2001-2002 something like that.

 

[Microchip]

$800,000 to enable the greatest fraud in sports history and keep quiet about it, while ensuring that no direct rival benefit from his expertise, seems pretty cheap actually.

particularly when you think about the millions armstrong was raking in -- and only raking in because of ferrari.

it really seems like quite a small amount. maybe it went up as the years went by. this article was from 2001-2002 something like that.

Totally agree it sounds small. Maybe that's why Armstrong made a payment of $485,000 (or whatever the amount was) ... maybe it was an installment and he owes ... hah hah...

 

[Polish]

it was reported in velo in the early 2000s that armstrong had an exclusive contract with ferrari and paid him $800,000 a year for that exclusivity. I believe the recently discovered payment is only an installment.

$800,000 a year for a hematologist to give you interval training advice.

So now you are saying $800,000 is a bargain.
Lance should have paid more.

Lance is frugal I guess.

 

[Dr.Sahl]

What if he's not the biggest sporting fraud in history and was simply on the same regime of drugs as most people of the era, as cited by former team mates Landis and Hamilton? And what if he actually has done a lot for cancer victims? It really troubles my conscience. I mean, yeah he's prickly and demands loyalty from people, but I come into contact with many people like that with complicated personalities. I work with one. Armstrong, at least, is self aware. We're supposed to write off a great of the sport for that? We pretend all those great wins during the tour - the hardest tour in the sport due to competition - didn't happen? I think I love the sport too much to do that. I'd put cycling over SCA or some personality conflict that has nothing to do with me, every time.

The thing is.. just because others did it does not make it right.. Besides we know as a fact, that his livestrong does not do much more than abit of awareness and the overhead is so high it makes me thing if so people are dumb when they praise it.

I never pretended Armstrong to win clean, infact all people I know was wondering why people didnt do more to stop him back then, it was obvious that the whole team was doing organised doping.. its like "sorry for the generalisation" most Americans need a hero that they can believe in, even if the hero is a obvious fraud..

If Armstrong like many other riders, had come clean and tried to fight the old way "team doping etc" he might have saved some people from getting forced into doping and getting cancer!! I have no doubt in my heart that Armstrong got cancer from doping. "self inflicted"

I don't only judge sports heroes on their results, I rather see a hero in some of the guys with a great personality, whom also show some team spirit... but to each his own I guess..

You keep saying you love the sport and respect it to much to forget about his victories as great, this is weird.. I reather see a sport with "less crazy action" but more even terms..

But all in all, the biggest problem is how young riders get forced into doping.. I just can't see why people support people like LA, JB, etc. when they are contaminating so many young and innocent riders... atleast give them a choice of their own.

As I wrote earlier, it would be very good, if he got his 7 wins taking away and the winner spot would be left without any winner, but just saying "era of doping no winners"

 

[JRTinMA]

The thing is.. just because others did it does not make it right.. Besides we know as a fact, that his livestrong does not do much more than abit of awareness and the overhead is so high it makes me thing if so people are dumb when they praise it.

<SNIP>

As I said before, don't believe everything you read and even less of what you read in a forum. Charity navigator gives LAF 4 stars for financials and transparency, and 4 stars overall.

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

 

[goober]

The thing is.. just because others did it does not make it right.. Besides we know as a fact, that his livestrong does not do much more than abit of awareness and the overhead is so high it makes me thing if so people are dumb when they praise it.

I never pretended Armstrong to win clean, infact all people I know was wondering why people didnt do more to stop him back then, it was obvious that the whole team was doing organised doping.. its like "sorry for the generalisation" most Americans need a hero that they can believe in, even if the hero is a obvious fraud..

If Armstrong like many other riders, had come clean and tried to fight the old way "team doping etc" he might have saved some people from getting forced into doping and getting cancer!! I have no doubt in my heart that Armstrong got cancer from doping. "self inflicted"

I don't only judge sports heroes on their results, I rather see a hero in some of the guys with a great personality, whom also show some team spirit... but to each his own I guess..

You keep saying you love the sport and respect it to much to forget about his victories as great, this is weird.. I reather see a sport with "less crazy action" but more even terms..

But all in all, the biggest problem is how young riders get forced into doping.. I just can't see why people support people like LA, JB, etc. when they are contaminating so many young and innocent riders... atleast give them a choice of their own.

As I wrote earlier, it would be very good, if he got his 7 wins taking away and the winner spot would be left without any winner, but just saying "era of doping no winners"

All this post tells me is that you are illogically opinionated.

 

[thehog]

As I said before, don't believe everything you read and even less of what you read in a forum. Charity navigator gives LAF 4 stars for financials and transparency, and 4 stars overall.

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

You seem to know a little bit about Livestrong.

What does 4 stars mean? Is that a financial rating? Or some form of social contribution to society? How do they measure the 4 starts? Number of lives saved? Total amount contributed to research?

Just interested.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

As I said before, don't believe everything you read and even less of what you read in a forum. Charity navigator gives LAF 4 stars for financials and transparency, and 4 stars overall.

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

Charitynavigator give ratings on how a charity operates- it does not work out how much 'awareness' it generates

Also, I remember Charitynavigator President commenting on the Livestrong deal.

Two heads of charity watchdog groups that rate nonprofit organizations said the deal's apparent bundling of Armstrong's personal financial interests with those of the foundation troubled them.

"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.''

 

[peterst6906]

You seem to know a little bit about Livestrong.

What does 4 stars mean? Is that a financial rating? Or some form of social contribution to society? How do they measure the 4 starts? Number of lives saved? Total amount contributed to research?

Just interested.

It's under their methodology tab:

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=33

I haven't been through it and not really interested since these things commonly have a facade of objectivity hiding the subjectivity of the assessments.

 

[thehog]

It's under their methodology tab:

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=33

I haven't been through it and not really interested since these things commonly have a facade of objectivity hiding the subjectivity of the assessments.

We rate charities by evaluating two broad areas of performance; their Financial Health and their Accountability & Transparency.

Thanks Peterst6906. Has little or nothing to do with assessing the contribution the foundation makes to patients, sufferers, families or research. That’s disappointing. It’s really hard to understand what the term “awareness” actually means and how the money spent is for this platform. I really don’t understand it what it is they do.

 

[sniper]

You seem to know a little bit about Livestrong.

What does 4 stars mean? Is that a financial rating? Or some form of social contribution to society? How do they measure the 4 starts? Number of lives saved? Total amount contributed to research?

Just interested.

First of all, the Charity Navigator doesn't show what a given charity disburses.

Other substantial criticism is found here:
http://raremedium.org/2007/10/31/charity-navigators-vital-mission-hides-flawed-rankings/
It basically says that the charities that spend most money on marketing will score highest on the Navigator's list.

 

[Dr.Sahl]

As I said before, don't believe everything you read and even less of what you read in a forum. Charity navigator gives LAF 4 stars for financials and transparency, and 4 stars overall.

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

You can see the overhead etc. Then again, I dislike most charity fondations anyway.. but the research one is right ^^ its only awareness (never said it didnt do that, but you can find 500 others that do that)

All this post tells me is that you are illogically opinionated.

We all have opinions, I never said I liked LA or was neutral in my opinion, but I did say I repect him in some ways (see former post) but that does not mean I don't dislike the guys personality.

...

I still dare to say that anyone who thinks LA, JB etc is being witch hunted, have a large immagination and needs a hero to survive.

Anyway... My opinion is clear, trying to catch and punish people for fraud, doping etc. is a very good thing in my book and yes ofc it needs to be done it a way that gives doubt before convicting (even when its obvious)

 

[JRTinMA]

You seem to know a little bit about Livestrong.

What does 4 stars mean? Is that a financial rating? Or some form of social contribution to society? How do they measure the 4 starts? Number of lives saved? Total amount contributed to research?

Just interested.

I don't know anything about LAF but I can search the internet. Its a formula based on financial health and transparency. If you want to know more click the link and Charity Navigator explains their rating system.

 

[Anonymous]

A quick word about the SCA angle.

Lying on an insurance application is grounds for nullification of contract.

Collecting on an insurance policy where the applicant or the principally insured lied on the application is fraud.

Insurance fraud can be grounds for not only civil litigation but criminal as well.

If LA gets stripped for doping offences then SCA will likely have grounds to take a big chunk of the wealth LA has remaining. It would be up to the County to charge him criminally but I could imagine a scenario where some gung-ho DA might want to make a name for him/herself.... Plus, by then, Lance may be so damaged the vultures begin pecking off the last of the flesh.

 

[JRTinMA]

Charitynavigator give ratings on how a charity operates- it does not work out how much 'awareness' it generates

Also, I remember Charitynavigator President commenting on the Livestrong deal.

I was not commenting on awareness, I was commenting on the overhead statement the poster made. Overhead is part of the financial rating, LAF has been awarded a 4 star rating for financials.

Did you make up that quote? Have a link?

 

[Polish]

The thing that bothers ME the most about The Foundation is the subsidizing of Hookers and Blow. What is that about? Oh yeah - JetFuel too. Hookers & Blow & Jetfuel.

And the Beer ads on The Foundation website?? I don't know about Texas, but out here in California we know that Beer CAUSES cancer. Have signs in our bars and saloons stating that fact. Most dangerous for pregnant women. So The Fountation promotesd beer and then donates to Planned ParentHood for who knows what. Rubbers?

End of rant.

 

[rhubroma]

I don't know anything about LAF but I can search the internet. Its a formula based on financial health and transparency. If you want to know more click the link and Charity Navigator explains their rating system.

What has "finacial health" and "charity" got in common. Isn't this a conflict of interests in the purely charitable (and not business) spirit of things?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I was not commenting on awareness, I was commenting on the overhead statement the poster made. Overhead is part of the financial rating, LAF has been awarded a 4 star rating for financials.

Did you make up that quote? Have a link?

I dont need to make up stuff, here is the link for you - http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/otl/news/story?id=5551242

You mention overheads, strange that you use a star rating rather than discuss dollar amount. Take a look at the wages of key personell.

 

[JRTinMA]

What has "finacial health" and "charity" got in common. Isn't this a conflict of interests in the purely charitable (and not business) spirit of things?

Its a rating based on the charities program, administrative and marketing costs. You want these to be reasonable based on benchmarking vs other charities or a charity receives a bad or reduced rating. You don't want your charitable donations going to fund hookers and blow.