"You want a rider?"

[Sprocket01]

Well, here is the Top 20 on their list,

1/Cavendish
2/Contador
3/EBH
4/A.Schleck
5/Evans
6/Gilbert
7/Greipel
8/Farrar
9/Lance
10/Valverde
11/Hushovd
12/Cancellara
13/Haussler
14/Menchov
15/T.Martin
16/Pellizotti
17/Gerrans
18/Ivanov
19/Kloeden
20/Wiggins

Surprised Armstrong isn't in the top three. Finishing 3rd in the ToF after being out for four years, at 37, was one of the all time great comebacks.

 

[chambers]

lets take a look at Armstrong's expenditure in Livestrong, and the effectiveness and efficiency, and who benefits?

Charity Navigator has Livestrong in the worst category for expenditure to cost ratio.

Armstrong's charity is about raising awareness, and funneling revenue to his charity, about raising awareness, and survivor support and advocacy. Such nebulous goals, it is not as cancer awareness was lacking before. Armstrong's Livestrong programs and aid are a chopshop and have copied advice and programs offered previously, he is not novel, it is just supplanting the other space, and taking market share.

So how does he work out on expenditure efficiency? Is his space adequately covered at the moment by other programs, and his spendthrift expenditure and promotion of the Livestrong brand, hurts the % of funds going towards effective research for a cure for cancer.

There have been some studies where they find there is a set pool of funds for charity, and people will give what they have budgeted and find select causes. When the Tsunami hit in the pacific, other charities suffered because their take was less, because people donated to the Tsunami support. Charities have hurt a little in the economic downturn, but, that is a different variable. Salient point, charity donations are fungible, so what counts is the efficiency and effectiveness on the use of the money.

See Mahmood Mamdani a professor academic of African and Asian studies at Columbia University and his findings on SaveDafur.org. They are a propaganda charity and no money reaches refugees in Sudan. My thesis would be Armstrong's charity does more to elevate him onto the political landscape and MSM media discourse, than his sporting accomplishments ever could. He would never speak to the late Tim Russert on Meet the Press and get traction in DC and the beltway via cycling.

Armstrong is about Armstrong, twitting, and w@nking.

I went to Charity Navigator's website. I did not find any information that supports your claims. I did find that Charity Navigator has Livestrong rated a 3 star organization overall. I checked their star ratings to see just what means. They say that 3 stars means : Exceeds or meets industry standards and performs as well as or better than most charities in its Cause.

 

[Mellow Velo]

Nonsense. They know Armstrong isn't going to bother to sue over a little hearsay rumour like this - why would he care. He probably thinks its funny.

Surprised Armstrong isn't in the top three. Finishing 3rd in the ToF after being out for four years, at 37, was one of the all time great comebacks.

Troll central all set to burn the midnight oil again.
Whoever said the truth is stranger than fiction, had never come across you.

 

[bianchigirl]

sprocket, a few teeth short of a decent gear ratio. He must be paid well though.

As for the PC rankings: Cavendish, quantity over quality (are there actually any other sprinters in the peloton not on Columbia?); EBH ranked high because he's the new Sky poster boy (2 minor tours and a minor Classic v a late Classics double, top 5 in Amstel, RvV and LBL and a Giro stage??) and as for number 9 - least said the better.

 

[Anonymous]

i think that whole top 20 is pretty much hogwash.. but then we could all come up with a top 20 based on whatever we liked and probably every top twenty would be different.. one of the few i possibly agree with is actually LA's.. top 10 in the world for the year based on a strong giro position (his first tour in 3 years) and a tour de france podium.. considering injury it was a pretty strong comeback..

you can also put good arguments to why none of them should be number 1
1/Cavendish - only won sprints, with a strong team behind him and a classic
2/Contador - really didnt do much beyond the tour de france
3/EBH - lots of wins, none major though
4/A.Schleck - LBL and 2nd in the tour...
5/Evans - Won one race, was crap the rest of the year
6/Gilbert - won some minor races towards the end of the season
7/Greipel - a few sprints but is 2nd to cav in the team
8/Farrar - came second a lot
9/Lance - got a podium and won nothing
10/Valverde - won a tour and major stage races under a cloud of suspsicion

so none of them should be number one...

actually, depressingly if you look on results its arguable that valverde should be #1 what an awful thought that is..

but that list is tripe..

 

[Oldman]

i think that whole top 20 is pretty much hogwash.. but then we could all come up with a top 20 based on whatever we liked and probably every top twenty would be different.. one of the few i possibly agree with is actually LA's.. top 10 in the world for the year based on a strong giro position (his first tour in 3 years) and a tour de france podium.. considering injury it was a pretty strong comeback..

you can also put good arguments to why none of them should be number 1
1/Cavendish - only won sprints, with a strong team behind him and a classic
2/Contador - really didnt do much beyond the tour de france
3/EBH - lots of wins, none major though
4/A.Schleck - LBL and 2nd in the tour...
5/Evans - Won one race, was crap the rest of the year
6/Gilbert - won some minor races towards the end of the season
7/Greipel - a few sprints but is 2nd to cav in the team
8/Farrar - came second a lot
9/Lance - got a podium and won nothing NEVADA CITY!
10/Valverde - won a tour and major stage races under a cloud of suspsicion

so none of them should be number one...

actually, depressingly if you look on results its arguable that valverde should be #1 what an awful thought that is..

but that list is tripe..

He did too when a race! Beat Sprocket to that one.

 

[zapata]

sprocket, a few teeth short of a decent gear ratio. He must be paid well though.

As for the PC rankings: Cavendish, quantity over quality (are there actually any other sprinters in the peloton not on Columbia?); EBH ranked high because he's the new Sky poster boy (2 minor tours and a minor Classic v a late Classics double, top 5 in Amstel, RvV and LBL and a Giro stage??) and as for number 9 - least said the better.

re gilbert vs ebh, ebh got a stage in the giro as well..Cycling quotient has gilbert fitfh and boasson sixth, that seems about right to me.

 

[ingsve]

re gilbert vs ebh, ebh got a stage in the giro as well..Cycling quotient has gilbert fitfh and boasson sixth, that seems about right to me.

Ya, the CQ ranking is better imo. It doesn't inflate stage wins in the same way as this ranking seems to do.

 

[zapata]

Cycling quotient also has a category called victory rankings, which is simply counting the number of wins. Top three no surprises: cavendish, greipel, boasson hagen. number four, though, is jose rujano, which i must say came as a surprise to me. just read that he has signed with ISD, and apparantly wants to win the giro d'italia. Think he'll keep win any races next year, when he's back in europe?

 

[Blake792008]

i think that whole top 20 is pretty much hogwash.. but then we could all come up with a top 20 based on whatever we liked and probably every top twenty would be different.. one of the few i possibly agree with is actually LA's.. top 10 in the world for the year based on a strong giro position (his first tour in 3 years) and a tour de france podium.. considering injury it was a pretty strong comeback..

you can also put good arguments to why none of them should be number 1
1/Cavendish - only won sprints, with a strong team behind him and a classic
2/Contador - really didnt do much beyond the tour de france
3/EBH - lots of wins, none major though
4/A.Schleck - LBL and 2nd in the tour...
5/Evans - Won one race, was crap the rest of the year
6/Gilbert - won some minor races towards the end of the season
7/Greipel - a few sprints but is 2nd to cav in the team
8/Farrar - came second a lot
9/Lance - got a podium and won nothing
10/Valverde - won a tour and major stage races under a cloud of suspsicion

so none of them should be number one...

actually, depressingly if you look on results its arguable that valverde should be #1 what an awful thought that is..

but that list is tripe..[/QUOTE}
Your saying Evans was crap except for one race, doesnt third in the Vuelta or 2nd in the Dauphine mean anything , its just everyone remembers his Tour performance , im not disagreeing with your point that the list is a joke,maybe we just have different interpretations of decent results.

 

[Sprocket01]

Troll central all set to burn the midnight oil again.
Whoever said the truth is stranger than fiction, had never come across you.

But it was four years. 2005 to 2006 = 1 year. 2006 to 2007 = 2 years. 2007 to 2008 = 3 years. 2008 to 2009 = 4 years. Thus four years out.

Seems you can't count.

Hows Cadel Edwards doing by the way?

 

[Anonymous]

If you guys have not figured out that Sprocket is mentally ill and then decided to put him on "Ignore," I am not sure what to tell you.

 

[Anonymous]

But it was four years. 2005 to 2006 = 1 year. 2006 to 2007 = 2 years. 2007 to 2008 = 3 years. 2008 to 2009 = 4 years. Thus four years out.

Seems you can't count.

Hows Cadel Edwards doing by the way?

what...? what on earth are you about..

2005 - discovery channel
2006 - did not race
2007 - did not race
2008 - did not race
2009 - astana..

what on earth have you been taking to turn three years into four? youve basically tried to count 2006 twice... or are you trying to treat the cycling year like a football season - september to may?

 

[Sprocket01]

what...? what on earth are you about..

2005 - discovery channel
2006 - did not race
2007 - did not race
2008 - did not race
2009 - astana..

what on earth have you been taking to turn three years into four? youve basically tried to count 2006 twice... or are you trying to treat the cycling year like a football season - september to may?

No, no. 2006 is not counted twice. This is quite simple. He missed three ToFs, but he was out for four years. When LA was at the start of this year's tour, it will have been his first ToF for four years. Just give it a little thought.

Cadel Edwards is what Mellow Velo called Evans in another thread, just in case you wondered what that meant.

 

[auscyclefan94]

No, no. 2006 is not counted twice. This is quite simple. He missed three ToFs, but he was out for four years. When LA was at the start of this year's tour, it will have been his first ToF for four years. Just give it a little thought.

Cadel Edwards is what Mellow Velo called Evans in another thread, just in case you wondered what that meant.

Why does it matter? I'm in a bad mood as it is 32oC or 90oF in Aus and it's not even summer. I rode my bike in that heat yesterday. HOT!!!!!

 

[msjett]

No, no. 2006 is not counted twice. This is quite simple. He missed three ToFs, but he was out for four years. When LA was at the start of this year's tour, it will have been his first ToF for four years. Just give it a little thought.

Cadel Edwards is what Mellow Velo called Evans in another thread, just in case you wondered what that meant.

It make sense if you are using a mathematical equation like the one for compound interest, where you would calculate days.

But considering the tour occurs once a year and he rode it in 2005 he only missed three 2006, 2007,2008 that means he was only out of the tour for 3 years....sometimes it's better not to over think it.

 

[msjett]

Why does it matter? I'm in a bad mood as it is 32oC or 90oF in Aus and it's not even summer. I rode my bike in that heat yesterday. HOT!!!!!

Invest in air conditioning or move to a cooler climate..

 

[Anonymous]

No, no. 2006 is not counted twice. This is quite simple. He missed three ToFs, but he was out for four years. When LA was at the start of this year's tour, it will have been his first ToF for four years. Just give it a little thought.

Cadel Edwards is what Mellow Velo called Evans in another thread, just in case you wondered what that meant.

so if i slap you round the head with a fish in 2005, 2009, and 2010, how many years in that time have a not slapped you round the head with a fish..?

 

[msjett]

so if i slap you round the head with a fish in 2005, 2009, and 2010, how many years in that time have a not slapped you round the head with a fish..?

Not enough times with the slapping around the head with a fish...shame he missed THREE years. lol

 

[Sprocket01]

It make sense if you are using a mathematical equation like the one for compound interest, where you would calculate days.

But considering the tour occurs once a year and he rode it in 2005 he only missed three 2006, 2007,2008 that means he was only out of the tour for 3 years....sometimes it's better not to over think it.

But since I never mentioned how many tours he missed, but rather how long he was out for, I am correct.

Actually it was LA himself who I saw saying this in an interview on Eurosport a few weeks after the Tour. I thought, eh? Then I realised (in a micro second) he was correct - he missed three, but it was four physical years since he rode a Tour.

The End.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Invest in air conditioning or move to a cooler climate..

It's 35oC in now. About 93-95 in Fahrenheit.

 

[msjett]

But since I never mentioned how many tours he missed, but rather how long he was out for, I am correct.

Actually it was LA himself who I saw said this in an interview on Eurosport a few weeks after the Tour. I thought, eh? Then I realised he was correct - he missed three, but it was four physical years since he rode a Tour.

The End.

Which is why I said it makes sense if you calculate days between the races each year...if you weren't such a **** about it, I wouldn't have bothered replying.

Also he was racing prior to the TDF so that actually changes the amount of days, weeks and years he was off his bike.

 

[msjett]

It's 35oC in now. About 93-95 in Fahrenheit.

Go to the pub...its always cool in the pub!

 

[Sprocket01]

Which is why I said it makes sense if you calculate days between the races each year...if you weren't such a **** about it, I wouldn't have bothered replying.

I'm not the one who made a big deal about it in the first place. Aren't I allowed to correct the record when called a genius for saying something that is actually true?

Ah, you people.

 

[Anonymous]

But since I never mentioned how many tours he missed, but rather how long he was out for, I am correct.

Actually it was LA himself who I saw saying this in an interview on Eurosport a few weeks after the Tour. I thought, eh? Then I realised (in a micro second) he was correct - he missed three, but it was four physical years since he rode a Tour.

The End.

it may have been four physical years (well 3 years and 49 weeks) since he rode a tour, but he was not out for FOUR years, because he rode races before the 2009 tour, the season started with the tour down under.. you could possibly argue that he was out for 1227 days or something, but its still not fo.....fo......fo.....

.........for rugs sake why am i bothering..

sprocket you are right... now can you please rework the rest of the modern calander for us overnight and let us know tommoro what year we are actually in cos clearly we dont have a clue..

im going to bed...