- Mar 18, 2009
- 14,644
- 81
- 22,580
ManInFull said:
"In the three days after the ban, Livestrong averaged 463 online donations and $30,000 per day. Earlier this week, the number of online donations was fewer than 70 per day, and the amount was less than $5,400 per day."
New headline: Livestrong Donations Plummet 80% After Ban
DirtyWorks said:
I have a question, perhaps some of the knowledgeable ones can chime in with their educated-guesses-better-than-mine...
I assume that USADA was able to get their hands on whatever paperwork the feds had from their investigation. This probably saved them a lot of money. If the feds had not investigated, would USADA have had the funding to both continue their everyday mission with current athletes, and look into the Lance Armstrong thing?
How many other national anti-doping panels around the world suffer from not being able to go after dopers from the past because they aren't subsidized by the government in this way?
Also -- the feds primarily went after Armstrong, I believe, because he had been sponsored by a branch of the federal government, the USPS. If Lance had not been sponsored by USPS, but only by private companies, would there have been an investigation at all? Would he be banned now if his sponsor had been someone else?
Perhaps to show our support, we should only use USPS from now on as a way of thanking the government for their help in this matter. And besides, had Lance raced for UPS instead of USPS, he would have had to wear ugly brown uniforms for 7 years, and nobody wants that. AG2R's shorts are too much as it is.
Thanks
- Jun 21, 2009
- 847
- 0
- 0
BroDeal said:
it shouldn't make me happy really but i'm f******* buzzing off that
take that lance you cancer milker
- May 9, 2009
- 283
- 2
- 0
babastooey said:
I think the thing that the federal investigation brought was to subpoena witnesses and compel them to testify under the penalty of perjury. This is a huge hammer that USADA does not have, funding or no funding. Without this, I don't think that USADA ever would have been able to unravel this.
- Jun 11, 2011
- 473
- 0
- 0
answer:
1. because he wants to
2. because he is and has been a bike racer for most of his life
3. because he is an ego-maniac
4. because it is income
how many reasons do you need? why are you worrying about what he is doing in retirement? move on
1. because he wants to
2. because he is and has been a bike racer for most of his life
3. because he is an ego-maniac
4. because it is income
how many reasons do you need? why are you worrying about what he is doing in retirement? move on
- Jul 5, 2012
- 2,878
- 1
- 11,485
OT, but seeing as some people are either completely ignorant or can't be bothered reading any of the 10000 plus posts on Armstrong vs USADA that covered in detail every aspect of the case (or both):
USADA cannot and did not utilize a single scrap of FDA investigation evidence or testimony. To do so would have invalidated their prosecution. USADA is not a state actor.
FDA did not furnish said evidence or testimony to USADA. To do so would have been a crime.
What DID happen is that team mates and others that were required to give testimony under oath (Grand Jury or Novitzky) asked that USADA also be present. They did not want a Marion Jones situation developing where they are sent to jail for perjury if their evidence to USADA had any discrepancies to FDA.
End of story.
USADA cannot and did not utilize a single scrap of FDA investigation evidence or testimony. To do so would have invalidated their prosecution. USADA is not a state actor.
FDA did not furnish said evidence or testimony to USADA. To do so would have been a crime.
What DID happen is that team mates and others that were required to give testimony under oath (Grand Jury or Novitzky) asked that USADA also be present. They did not want a Marion Jones situation developing where they are sent to jail for perjury if their evidence to USADA had any discrepancies to FDA.
End of story.
- Jun 18, 2009
- 1,225
- 1
- 0
Great job by the money-grubbing cowards putting on the Leadville qualifying series. I just read the "article" on the front page:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lance-armstrong-continues-to-compete-despite-ban
Why didn't a CN reporter ask about this part:
"USA Cycling Sanctioned Event
All LQS events are sanctioned by USA Cycling. Participants must have a current USA Cycling racing license or buy a One-Day License on-site the day before the race. If you paid $10 for a USAC One-Day3 license online, you will not need to pay. Race age is determined by an athlete’s age on December 31,
2011."
http://www.leadvillequalifiers.com/media/pdf/crestedbutte_athleteguide.pdf
They promoter is obviously a liar, so why not call him on it?
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lance-armstrong-continues-to-compete-despite-ban
Why didn't a CN reporter ask about this part:
"USA Cycling Sanctioned Event
All LQS events are sanctioned by USA Cycling. Participants must have a current USA Cycling racing license or buy a One-Day License on-site the day before the race. If you paid $10 for a USAC One-Day3 license online, you will not need to pay. Race age is determined by an athlete’s age on December 31,
2011."
http://www.leadvillequalifiers.com/media/pdf/crestedbutte_athleteguide.pdf
They promoter is obviously a liar, so why not call him on it?
- Mar 16, 2009
- 19,482
- 2
- 0
131313 said:
The main thing re: membership is insurance, right?
In Aus CA organises insurance for all members and if you're racing - on 1 / 3 day or 6 / 12 month license - you're covered for insurance purposes for that race, but you're also signing that paper to be subject to CA rules. This is far cheaper than individual races / clubs / riders organising their own insurance.
I am guessing USAC has a similar deal that race organisers and clubs can take advantage of?
Otherwise they too need to organise their own insurace policies.
- Jun 7, 2011
- 4,281
- 2,840
- 21,180
- Jun 18, 2009
- 1,225
- 1
- 0
Poursuivant said:
Of course! Seriously, why wouldn't he be? No testing, and his self-worth is obviously tied to his race performance. He's just like one of those guys doping to "win" the local group ride at this point. It's the same pathology. I expect he'll be juiced to the gills.
131313 said:
Because I don't believe it was written by a CN reporter (By: Cycling News), and I do not believe the interview was conducted by CN either.
The closest I could find was a verbatim reproduction of the article on this forum here:
http://486224.forumromanum.com/memb...quo_t_keep_a_good_man_down-tourgottforum.html
CN location: England
CN Publish time: Sept 13, 22:13
Forum location: Germany? (Willkommen Gast)
Forum publish time: Sept 13, 23:34
If the locations are correct, and the publish times are displaying local time, it would appear the forum trumps the CN release.
That would explain why
1. no CN author is shown
2. no attribution is made (to some random forum?)
Or the article source has not been indexed yet.
Of course, I am happy to be proven wrong.
- Jun 18, 2009
- 1,225
- 1
- 0
the big ring said:
Fair enough. But instead of re-printing something verbatim, how about some due diligence? It took me less than 20 seconds to find that link which clearly states that all of the LQS events were originally going to be USAC-sanctioned. So, it gives some context to the promoter's statement that the events are unsanctioned. This is the difference between news and press releases, and between journalism and a blog.
I like CN, but they need to be held accountable when they allow themselves to be used as a PR firm.
131313 said:
I do too - and I think this accountability thing has been addressed at length in the United States of omerta thread. It's an issue across the board from Phil Liggett at one extreme to Kimmage at the other.
Even though I believe the article was written by a non-CN staffer, it was clearly posted by one. I'd like to see attribution regardless - ie who actually posted it.
Unless it's a CN bot.
LauraLyn
BANNED
- Jul 13, 2012
- 594
- 0
- 0
ManInFull said:
Great. It is good that people are waking up to the Lance Armstrong Foundation / LiveStrong.org.
But this needs to change:
That is simply shameful.
The next step should be a class-action lawsuit against the LAF on behalf of all those donors defrauded with the aim to have the donations (all) redirected to a genuine cancer fighting organization that has never had anything to do with LiveStrong or Lance Armstrong.
- Jun 18, 2009
- 1,225
- 1
- 0
LauraLyn said:
Since it's no longer a sanctioned race, I don't know if he's technically violating any rules (he still may be, ala that Masters dude up in Seattle whose ban was extended after he did some unsanctioned training race, I can't remember the particulars). Regardless, he's banned for life and he's no longer a license holder, so they can't do anything to him which they haven't already done.
What they can do is sanction any license holders who race with him, as they threatened to do when Tyler Hamilton was going to start his own crit series. Of course, Lance knows they won't do that, since it will make them appear like the bad guy and he'll cry "witch hunt". So, it's up to the registered participants to grow a backbone and tell the promoter to eff off.
LauraLyn said:
Assuming Lance actually has a "code of conduct" aside from the history of sefl-serving acts; he had vowed to "put the whole issue behind..." and concentrate on his noble fight to save the world from cancer. That is, his definition of cancer I suppose.
If he wants to accomplish that you'd assume his "code" would suggest he no longer needed to call attention to his dubious athletic ambitions. At least there is no testing so no need to have a pesky conflict with the Code of WADA, USADA or any other governing agency.
TRENDING THREADS
-
World Championship 2025: Men’s RR, September 28- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 2K
-
Il Lombardia 2025, monument, October 11- Started by Krzysztof_O
- Replies: 792
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 35K
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 40K
-
European Championship 2025: Men’s RR, October 5- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 854
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 13K
-
World Championship 2025: Men’s ITT, September 21- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 942
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram