Why do you dislike Armstrong?

[Hugh Januss]

Great job Andy1234. Your thread has been very entertaining. To be labeled a troll right out of the gate and than get a post count that now exceeds 100 takes talent. As always the ones complaining and hating the most have posted multiple times to this thread. Although to be fair they can't help themselves which, in and of itself, accounts for most of the entertainment value.

Once again, right on point there Speedway. So why do you dislike Armstrong, since you've chosen to post in that thread?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Pardon my ignorance, but can you point me in the right direction to what exactly his financial relationship is to that? I agree if he is getting paid somehow by this, with his fortune, then that is not cool. Thanks.

Livestrong.com was set up in 2008 - it is run by Demand Media who keep all the advertising revenue from the site, Armstrong has a "significant" stake in Demand Media.

Also there was the Tour Down Under last year -the Australians admitted they had paid $2 million for Armstrong to attend and the money “will go to his charity.” But later Armstrong admitted that the $2 million was a personal fee and not for the Foundation.

 

[tifosa]

I don't know Armstrong personally, so my opinions of him stem from what I believe to be true based on his publicly available interviews, quotes, and otherwise recorded or public record materials.

Armstrong is an über arrogant pr!ck to anyone who stands up to him, or to anyone who refuses to stand beside him. This characteristic will most assuredly lead to his fall from grace as a cycling legend and will rebrand his very carefully crafted and controlled image to infamous. Armstrong has been lying for so long, that he has convinced himself his lies are the truth. Armstrong is a narcissistic a$$hole of the highest order.

THAT is my opinion of Armstrong.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Livestrong.com was set up in 2008 - it is run by Demand Media who keep all the advertising revenue from the site, Armstrong has a "significant" stake in Demand Media.

Also there was the Tour Down Under last year -the Australians admitted they had paid $2 million for Armstrong to attend and the money “will go to his charity.” But later Armstrong admitted that the $2 million was a personal fee and not for the Foundation.

Cancer wouldn't want Lance to starve.

 

[ThaiPanda]

Livestrong.com was set up in 2008 - it is run by Demand Media who keep all the advertising revenue from the site, Armstrong has a "significant" stake in Demand Media.

Also there was the Tour Down Under last year -the Australians admitted they had paid $2 million for Armstrong to attend and the money “will go to his charity.” But later Armstrong admitted that the $2 million was a personal fee and not for the Foundation.

So the Australians say one thing, and Armstrong says another. I don't plan to get into he said/she said but I agree his character is not at the highest level. What happened in Australia is not my concern because it is just rumor.

As for livestrong.com, I see your point. Any income generated by the site, other than that used for operating expenses, morally should go to the charity. You don't need a something like Demand Media to run this thing IMO.

But, the article says this:

Armstrong and his Lance Armstrong Foundation will take a “significant” equity stake in Demand Media, though the size of the stake was not disclosed

This is different than what you are implying by saying Armstrong has a stake. Leaving out the charity from your post tells me you are spinning. That doesn't mean I defend Armstrong here because I don't....he shouldn't be profitting. But, you didn't tell the whole story in your post, and not by coincidence painted Armstrong in a worse light than reality does. Bad doctor.

 

[MacRoadie]

This is different than what you are implying by saying Armstrong has a stake. Leaving out the charity from your post tells me you are spinning. That doesn't mean I defend Armstrong here because I don't....he shouldn't be profitting. But, you didn't tell the whole story in your post, and not by coincidence painted Armstrong in a worse light than reality does. Bad doctor.

I think you would be best served by doing additional research on the Armstrong/Demand Media relationship before chiding the good doctor.

There is a great deal of information beyond that single article and the subject has been discussed here at length.

 

[red_flanders]

So the Australians say one thing, and Armstrong says another. I don't plan to get into he said/she said but I agree his character is not at the highest level. What happened in Australia is not my concern because it is just rumor.

As for livestrong.com, I see your point. Any income generated by the site, other than that used for operating expenses, morally should go to the charity. You don't need a something like Demand Media to run this thing IMO.

But, the article says this:

This is different than what you are implying by saying Armstrong has a stake. Leaving out the charity from your post tells me you are spinning. That doesn't mean I defend Armstrong here because I don't....he shouldn't be profitting. But, you didn't tell the whole story in your post, and not by coincidence painted Armstrong in a worse light than reality does. Bad doctor.

I was sort of taking you seriously until this post. Maybe you should back off and dig into posting histories. The good doctor does not (and does not need to) engage in hyperbole or exaggeration.

There is no rumor about Armstrong's fee in Australia. He cleared it up. He took the money after previously at least allowing the lie that it was going to his charity to circulate. No debate exists.

It is a fact that Armstrong profits from the livestrong.com site by his ownership stake in Demand Media, who profit from the site. The site is an obvious intercept site for people looking for the cancer foundation (livestrong.org), and the .com offers almost no information about redirecting to the .org site.

As someone who does site traffic analysis as part of my daily job, I can tell you (and I'm laughing as I write this, the implementation is so absurdly, transparently money-grubbing and shameless) that if you want to optimize traffic to your .org site, the very last thing you would do is put a fully-featured .com site of the same name up, and you definitely don't exclude a link on the front page to clarify the difference. A .com will get exponentially more traffic than any other .tld. The site clearly siphons off the majority of traffic from people who are looking for livestrong and don't get that there's a .org and a .com and don't know what the difference is. I would guess that would be over 90% of the traffic, cautiously.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

So the Australians say one thing, and Armstrong says another. I don't plan to get into he said/she said but I agree his character is not at the highest level. What happened in Australia is not my concern because it is just rumor.

As for livestrong.com, I see your point. Any income generated by the site, other than that used for operating expenses, morally should go to the charity. You don't need a something like Demand Media to run this thing IMO.

But, the article says this:



This is different than what you are implying by saying Armstrong has a stake. Leaving out the charity from your post tells me you are spinning. That doesn't mean I defend Armstrong here because I don't....he shouldn't be profitting. But, you didn't tell the whole story in your post, and not by coincidence painted Armstrong in a worse light than reality does. Bad doctor.

In this post I completely disagree with you.

I wasn't inplying it.... I said it specifically.... that Armstrong has a significant stake, and that is true (I can get an article where LA confirms it, if you wish) - to me it does not matter if the LAF does, Armstrong should not.
I dont mind that Demand Media run the site - but all the equity should go to the LAF.

"The Australians" said it was going to the "charity" - its not a rumour, as Armstrong himself confirmed it.

The only bad Doctor is Ferrari, which I am sure you agree is just a doping doctor.

 

[ThaiPanda]

I was sort of taking you seriously until this post. Maybe you should back off and dig into posting histories. The good doctor does not (and does not need to) engage in hyperbole or exaggeration.

There is no rumor about Armstrong's fee in Australia. He cleared it up. He took the money after previously at least allowing the lie that it was going to his charity to circulate. No debate exists.

.....snip chest beating.....

First of all, this is what he posted:

Armstrong has a "significant" stake in Demand Media.

In reality, both Armstrong and LAF has a significant stake. Leaving that out of the post is a skew and paints Armstong in a worse light because M implied only Armstrong was profitting from having a stake, and not the LAF as well.

Again, I am not defending him doing it. I am just pointing out how posts are skewed here and things are 'omitted' from the discussion because this info would maybe lessen the vitriol.

I don't know what you say about Australia is correct or not, and I really don't give a rat's a$$ about this. I thought I made that clear in my reply but maybe your interpretation skills are lacking. I was replying to what doc M wrote which implied a he said/she said. Just because you can chime in with something else doesn't get my interest up any more than it already is on this subject.

I'm glad you stopped taking me seriously, so now I can look forward to you not replying to any of my posts in the future.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I was sort of taking you seriously until this post. Maybe you should back off and dig into posting histories. The good doctor does not (and does not need to) engage in hyperbole or exaggeration.

There is no rumor about Armstrong's fee in Australia. He cleared it up. He took the money after previously at least allowing the lie that it was going to his charity to circulate. No debate exists.

It is a fact that Armstrong profits from the livestrong.com site by his ownership stake in Demand Media, who profit from the site. The site is an obvious intercept site for people looking for the cancer foundation (livestrong.org), and the .com offers almost no information about redirecting to the .org site.

As someone who does site traffic analysis as part of my daily job, I can tell you (and I'm laughing as I write this, the implementation is so absurdly, transparently money-grubbing and shameless) that if you want to optimize traffic to your .org site, the very last thing you would do is put a fully-featured .com site of the same name up, and you definitely don't exclude a link on the front page to clarify the difference. A .com will get exponentially more traffic than any other .tld. The site clearly siphons off the majority of traffic from people who are looking for livestrong and don't get that there's a .org and a .com and don't know what the difference is. I would guess that would be over 90% of the traffic, cautiously.

I have included in this:
Livestrong.org
Livestrong.com
Lancearmstrong.com
Cyclingnews.com

 

[ThaiPanda]

In this post I completely disagree with you.
I wasn't inplying it.... I said it specifically.... that Armstrong has a significant stake, and that is true (I can get an article where LA confirms it, if you wish) - to me it does not matter if the LAF does, Armstrong should not.
I dont mind that Demand Media run the site - but all the equity should go to the LAF.
.

We agree that Armstrong should not be profitting, and any profit should be going to LAF. We have no difference on this subject. You don't need to post links. The fact that he is or not profitting is not the debate.

The debate is you left the fact that LAF was profitting as well out of your post. Why?

Hopefully you can answer before red flanders spams my post telling me how great he is because he stuidies websites.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

We agree that Armstrong should not be profitting, and any profit should be going to LAF. We have no difference on this subject. You don't need to post links. The fact that he is or not profitting is not the debate.

The debate is you left the fact that LAF was profitting as well out of your post. Why?

Hopefully you can answer before red flanders spams my post telling me how great he is because he stuidies websites.

Quite simply because it was not relevant to your original question:

Originally Posted by ThaiPanda
Pardon my ignorance, but can you point me in the right direction to what exactly his financial relationship is to that? I agree if he is getting paid somehow by this, with his fortune, then that is not cool. Thanks.

 

[ThaiPanda]

Quite simply because it was not relevant to your original question:

Originally Posted by ThaiPanda
Pardon my ignorance, but can you point me in the right direction to what exactly his financial relationship is to that? I agree if he is getting paid somehow by this, with his fortune, then that is not cool. Thanks.

Ok. I concede.

 

[red_flanders]

We agree that Armstrong should not be profitting, and any profit should be going to LAF. We have no difference on this subject. You don't need to post links. The fact that he is or not profitting is not the debate.

The debate is you left the fact that LAF was profitting as well out of your post. Why?

Hopefully you can answer before red flanders spams my post telling me how great he is because he stuidies websites.

I'm not great, and it's certainly not bragging on my part, just a that it made me laugh because of what I do all day. It's the opposite of rocket science. We look at traffic patterns and try to improve them. Simple stuff, seriously. Lot's of guessing about what will and won't work.

Let's say for a minute that maximizing traffic to the .org site is the goal. What's the first thing you'd change? You'd scrub the .com, give it a completely different URL or move all the .org content to the .com.

Clearly the goal is to direct traffic to the .com, and the .org is a minor, almost blip-level aside. What is the real reason for it? If I had a feature on my site which was doing that poorly, I'd kill it or change it fundamentally.

Clearly there is some other reason to keep the .org. It's not about getting visitors. What's it about?

 

[spanky wanderlust]

this thread should be closed and renamed "the bpc troll formula".

step one: enter sock puppet with newbie question with a vibe of innocence.
response: established forum members crucify him for being ***.
step two: someone not realizing he is a puppet gives benefit of doubt and answers newbie question.
response: puppet, still feigning innocence, praises diplomacy of naive member, then launches assault number one on the crucifying mob.
step two: someone realizes immediately its our not so beloved troll.
response: troll denies charge, pretends to wonder why someone would think this.
by now we are 3-5 pages in usually
step three: enter the sock puppets (actually the troll, under yet a new name). they have zero to few posts right now, but no worry, by the end of this engagement they will have many or more. sp defends op troll extending thread for as many pages as possible.
(this is a draft of the formula as i've been able to work it out. feel free to add your input)

it could be used as a case study for doctors and grad students studying the internet trolling phenomenon.

of all of the forums i've had the (mis)fortune of partaking in over the years, i have to admit that this one has the most artfully pernicious troll i've come across.

the guy is an extraordinary sociopath. he can't feel emotions himself; he can only emulate the surface features of them. this deficiency results in a rare ability to exploit the genuine emotions of others.

the others of course might appear to be to blame, but that's not entirely fair. they believe themselves to be dealing with someone like themselves, someone with emotions, and are simply responding in kind. it's only natural.

if i were a psychologist, i'd find this very interesting. but i'm not. so i'm bored. i'm reading a troll thread in the clinic, ffs, and responding to it! it must be a flat stage!

 

[ThaiPanda]

Let's say for a minute that maximizing traffic to the .org site is the goal. What's the first thing you'd change? You'd scrub the .com, give it a completely different URL or move all the .org content to the .com.

Clearly the goal is to direct traffic to the .com, and the .org is a minor, almost blip-level aside. What is the real reason for it? If I had a feature on my site which was doing that poorly, I'd kill it or change it fundamentally.

Clearly there is some other reason to keep the .org. It's not about getting visitors. What's it about?

Who said maximising traffic on the laf.org was the goal of livestrong.com? LAF has a stake in the performance of .com. And????

You tell me the reason then we can discuss on level terms because you are way ahead of me here.

 

[saganftw]

i dont dislike or like him coz i dont know him as a person
as an athlete he was quite entertaining back in his days and i like to be entertained watching tv so that proly means i liked him as an athlete

 

[Benotti69]

this thread should be closed and renamed "the bpc troll formula".

+1 to that

 

[broken chain]

Great job Andy1234. Your thread has been very entertaining. To be labeled a troll right out of the gate and than get a post count that now exceeds 100 takes talent. As always the ones complaining and hating the most have posted multiple times to this thread. Although to be fair they can't help themselves which, in and of itself, accounts for most of the entertainment value.

+1,if was going to post I would have said the same.

 

[broken chain]

I don't know Armstrong personally, so my opinions of him stem from what I believe to be true based on his publicly available interviews, quotes, and otherwise recorded or public record materials.

Armstrong is an über arrogant pr!ck to anyone who stands up to him, or to anyone who refuses to stand beside him. This characteristic will most assuredly lead to his fall from grace as a cycling legend and will rebrand his very carefully crafted and controlled image to infamous. Armstrong has been lying for so long, that he has convinced himself his lies are the truth. Armstrong is a narcissistic a$$hole of the highest order.

THAT is my opinion of Armstrong.

Just like Tiger Woods, & Le Bron James, blame their money hungry P.R. people.

 

[skidmark]

*** edited by mod ***

 

[Anonymous]

+1,if was going to post I would have said the same.

If was going to post English thoughts coherent probably good.

 

[red_flanders]

Who said maximising traffic on the laf.org was the goal of livestrong.com? LAF has a stake in the performance of .com. And????

No one. It's clear it's not the goal. That's the point.

He's created a .org foundation and blathers on about his fight against cancer, supported by the foundation. The reality is that he intercepts the vast majority of that traffic with his for profit website.

This is reason #423 in the thread topic, "Why do you dislike Armstrong".

He's a liar and a douchebag.

 

[andy1234]

this thread should be closed and renamed "the bpc troll formula".

step one: enter sock puppet with newbie question with a vibe of innocence.
response: established forum members crucify him for being ***.
step two: someone not realizing he is a puppet gives benefit of doubt and answers newbie question.
response: puppet, still feigning innocence, praises diplomacy of naive member, then launches assault number one on the crucifying mob.
step two: someone realizes immediately its our not so beloved troll.
response: troll denies charge, pretends to wonder why someone would think this.
by now we are 3-5 pages in usually
step three: enter the sock puppets (actually the troll, under yet a new name). they have zero to few posts right now, but no worry, by the end of this engagement they will have many or more. sp defends op troll extending thread for as many pages as possible.
(this is a draft of the formula as i've been able to work it out. feel free to add your input)

it could be used as a case study for doctors and grad students studying the internet trolling phenomenon.

of all of the forums i've had the (mis)fortune of partaking in over the years, i have to admit that this one has the most artfully pernicious troll i've come across.

the guy is an extraordinary sociopath. he can't feel emotions himself; he can only emulate the surface features of them. this deficiency results in a rare ability to exploit the genuine emotions of others.

the others of course might appear to be to blame, but that's not entirely fair. they believe themselves to be dealing with someone like themselves, someone with emotions, and are simply responding in kind. it's only natural.

if i were a psychologist, i'd find this very interesting. but i'm not. so i'm bored. i'm reading a troll thread in the clinic, ffs, and responding to it! it must be a flat stage!

*** edited by mod ***

Let me start you off with one.
step 1 - read the title of a post but not the content.
step 2 - decide based upon the title how angry\happy you might be about the possible content
step 3 - impress everyone by not being fooled
Step 4 - retire to a comfy chair with a warm glow of superiority

 

[Dr. Maserati]

*** edited by mod ***
Let me start you off with one.
step 1 - read the title of a post but not the content.
step 2 - decide based upon the title how angry\happy you might be about the possible content
step 3 - impress everyone by not being fooled
Step 4 - retire to a comfy chair with a warm glow of superiority

Relax - yes, at first your original post looked quite like that of BPC.
The thread title wasn't so bad with "dislike" - but then you asked why do people 'hate' Armstrong in your opening post - intentional or not that will flame people.

BPC - our resident troll, has been on this thread and been remved again....dont worry he will be back in an hour or 2.


I asked this question earlier -
Wouldn't the question "why do you like/admire Armstrong " be better more appropriate - as in comparisson to last year, there appear to be a lot less fans of LA.