Livestrong gear - now less likely to wear?

UpDownUp
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2011 9:20 am

Livestrong gear - now less likely to wear?

Postby UpDownUp » Wed Oct 17, 2012 11:22 am

Do you own any Livestrong gear and if you did / do would you now be less likely to wear it?

User avatar
Kenzo
Posts: 1680
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 8:13 am
Location: Daisy Hill / Brisbane, Southside FTW
Contact:

Re: Livestrong gear - now less likely to wear?

Postby Kenzo » Wed Oct 17, 2012 11:48 am

I have a Livestrong t-shirt. It's my lawn mowing shirt - and I wear it every time I mow the lawn and that wont change 'cause I'm a bit nuts like that.
However - I'll just mow the lawn less often.

User avatar
marty_one
Posts: 244
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 10:11 am

Re: Livestrong gear - now less likely to wear?

Postby marty_one » Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:02 pm

If I did have Livestrong gear I would still wear it. Only because of the work they do for cancer and cancer research, it's not just Armstrong's money involved with this now.
Avantia Giro 3.0 2012
My Journey to Triathlon - Focusing more on cycling (no time for anything else).

Parker
Posts: 1639
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 6:25 pm

Re: Livestrong gear - now less likely to wear?

Postby Parker » Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:39 pm

Still wear it, actually was wearing my running gear the day the story broke, it's yellow, it's nike... SOLD

User avatar
warthog1
Posts: 5539
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm

Re: Livestrong gear - now less likely to wear?

Postby warthog1 » Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:44 pm

Should be some cheap bibs and jerseys on eBay shortly.

User avatar
Alex Simmons/RST
Expert
Posts: 4094
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Livestrong gear - now less likely to wear?

Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:48 pm

marty_one wrote:If I did have Livestrong gear I would still wear it. Only because of the work they do for cancer and cancer research, it's not just Armstrong's money involved with this now.

You do realise they spend no money on cancer research? None, zip, nada. And they have one of the worst administration cost ratios of all "charities"?

zero
Posts: 3018
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 2:54 pm

Re: Livestrong gear - now less likely to wear?

Postby zero » Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:50 pm

marty_one wrote:If I did have Livestrong gear I would still wear it. Only because of the work they do for cancer and cancer research, it's not just Armstrong's money involved with this now.


Livestrong hasn't in anyway supported cancer research for years. Majority of funds donated to it have historically been used to promote it, run it or collect donations for it. The only practical thing it does is remind people that a superfit guy once survived cancer and offer some support to some cancer patients.

Curing cancer in general is not aligned with its core objectives.

User avatar
norbs
Posts: 2314
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 11:20 am
Location: Shoalhaven. NSW

Re: Livestrong gear - now less likely to wear?

Postby norbs » Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:54 pm

Alex Simmons/RST wrote:
marty_one wrote:If I did have Livestrong gear I would still wear it. Only because of the work they do for cancer and cancer research, it's not just Armstrong's money involved with this now.

You do realise they spend no money on cancer research? None, zip, nada. And they have one of the worst administration cost ratios of all "charities"?



Alex, got any references for those facts. I am not doubting you, just curios to see the numbers in black and white.

User avatar
Cardy George
Posts: 327
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 11:10 pm
Location: Cardross, Vic

Re: Livestrong gear - now less likely to wear?

Postby Cardy George » Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:56 pm

marty_one wrote:If I did have Livestrong gear I would still wear it. Only because of the work they do for cancer and cancer research, it's not just Armstrong's money involved with this now.


Have a read:

Outside Online - It's Not About The Lab Rats

Wow, beaten to the punch so quickly.......

Of the money they do raise, around the world the vast majority goes to USA patients

User avatar
Alex Simmons/RST
Expert
Posts: 4094
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Livestrong gear - now less likely to wear?

Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:59 pm

Some Livestrong money was used to pay a lobbyist in Washington to lobby government to take USADA down.

User avatar
roller
Posts: 1801
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 6:17 pm
Location: embleton

Re: Livestrong gear - now less likely to wear?

Postby roller » Wed Oct 17, 2012 1:01 pm

zero wrote:Curing cancer in general is not aligned with its core objectives.


curing cancer would put it out of business.

that's the last thing lance wants, no more CA$$$H for him!
inflammatory statement or idea

Jono L.
Posts: 176
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:12 pm

Re: Livestrong gear - now less likely to wear?

Postby Jono L. » Wed Oct 17, 2012 1:17 pm

Figures for the most recent financial accounts for Armstrong’s foundation show it had an income of $43million ($41m AUD) in the year ending December 31, 2011, of which almost $15.6m were donations. Of the $34.1m spent in the same period, only $4.78m was spent on grants and awards for cancer sufferers and organisations helping them.

The notion that Armstrong’s charity work somehow excuses him is challenged unequivocally by Andreu. "He’s like Bernie Madoff, who gave millions to leukaemia charities and his family was hit heavily by cancer," she said. "It’s the classic do-good then you can hide behind it when you’re doing the bad. It was the perfect obstruction.

‘They’ve given barely nothing to cancer research, it’s about cancer awareness. There are many wonderful foundations which give money to cancer research. Give your money to them, not to Livestrong."


http://www.news.com.au/national/whilste ... 6496770763

User avatar
Alex Simmons/RST
Expert
Posts: 4094
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Livestrong gear - now less likely to wear?

Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Wed Oct 17, 2012 1:19 pm

norbs wrote:
Alex Simmons/RST wrote:
marty_one wrote:If I did have Livestrong gear I would still wear it. Only because of the work they do for cancer and cancer research, it's not just Armstrong's money involved with this now.

You do realise they spend no money on cancer research? None, zip, nada. And they have one of the worst administration cost ratios of all "charities"?



Alex, got any references for those facts. I am not doubting you, just curios to see the numbers in black and white.

Their annual financial report should do, although they claim to support "scientific" research, the only research they support pertains to "cancer awareness". i.e. - are you aware of cancer? Are you aware that Lance had cancer and came back to race (I'm serious - they have awareness raising on this with schools kids) ? Nothing whatsoever to do with medical research.

Now I am not saying that awareness and support programs for those afflicted with or supporting those with cancer is a bad thing. But this is first and foremost a PR machine.

http://www.livestrong.org/pdfs/4-0/2010 ... -Statement

In years past, they have also provided a couple of grants to medical / university institutions worth a couple of $mill. In an amazing coincidence, they went to the doctors who would not testify against LA.

Jono L.
Posts: 176
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:12 pm

Re: Livestrong gear - now less likely to wear?

Postby Jono L. » Wed Oct 17, 2012 1:20 pm

http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-ad ... -Rats.html

If Lance Armstrong went to jail and Livestrong went away, that would be a huge setback in our war against cancer, right? Not exactly, because the ­famous nonprofit donates almost ­nothing to scientific research. BILL GIFFORD looks at where the money goes and finds a mix of fine ideas, millions of dollars aimed at “awareness,” and a few very blurry lines

master6
Posts: 2726
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 5:37 pm
Location: depends on who is asking, and why.

Re: Livestrong gear - now less likely to wear?

Postby master6 » Wed Oct 17, 2012 1:24 pm

My 06 Trek in Discovery Channel blue livery is still a nice bike; nothing has changed. I think that drugged people have probably ridden most brands of bike.


User avatar
Cardy George
Posts: 327
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 11:10 pm
Location: Cardross, Vic

Re: Livestrong gear - now less likely to wear?

Postby Cardy George » Wed Oct 17, 2012 2:48 pm

master6 wrote:My 06 Trek in Discovery Channel blue livery is still a nice bike; nothing has changed. I think that drugged people have probably ridden most brands of bike.


Agreed, but now when I think about wearing my Commemorative Yellow Jersey with his name clearly written on it, I have to decide of I want field all the questions from those who know and those who think they know.

It might have to become my wet weather jersey.......

User avatar
marty_one
Posts: 244
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 10:11 am

Re: Livestrong gear - now less likely to wear?

Postby marty_one » Wed Oct 17, 2012 2:57 pm

Cardy George wrote:Have a read:

Outside Online - It's Not About The Lab Rats

Wow, beaten to the punch so quickly.......

Of the money they do raise, around the world the vast majority goes to USA patients


Wow, had no idea it was such a con!! With some of the limited stuff that I had heard from interviews and as such I honestly thought that his charity was helping to provide funds for research. I was contemplating getting some of the merchandise which I thought also helped to raise money for support/research, wont be doing that now.
Avantia Giro 3.0 2012
My Journey to Triathlon - Focusing more on cycling (no time for anything else).

User avatar
sogood
Posts: 17153
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:31 am
Location: Sydney AU
Contact:

Re: Livestrong gear - now less likely to wear?

Postby sogood » Wed Oct 17, 2012 3:13 pm

I have never fallen for the Livestrong aura. Red Cross and other well established govt/non-govt organizations are the only ones I trust when it comes to private donations. And yes, I have also long questioned Livestrong's US focus, one that leaves no reason why we "2nd or 3rd world" countries should pay for the health of US citizens when the US govt's military budget tops the total of the next 10 countries? Anyway, for those who are interested, Livestrong Foundation publishes their financials. I have not gone through it and not likely to.

http://www.livestrong.org/Who-We-Are/Ou ... nformation
Bianchi, Ridley, Montague, GT, Garmin and All things Apple :)
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.

User avatar
biker jk
Posts: 5001
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 6:18 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Livestrong gear - now less likely to wear?

Postby biker jk » Wed Oct 17, 2012 3:14 pm

Presumably, those Lemond bikes (which Trek used to sell) must be worth much, much, more now that Greg is the only American winner of the Tour de France.

User avatar
find_bruce
Posts: 6087
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 8:42 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Livestrong gear - now less likely to wear?

Postby find_bruce » Wed Oct 17, 2012 3:23 pm

master6 wrote:My 06 Trek in Discovery Channel blue livery is still a nice bike; nothing has changed. I think that drugged people have probably ridden most brands of bike.

Cardy George wrote:Agreed, but now when I think about wearing my Commemorative Yellow Jersey with his name clearly written on it, I have to decide of I want field all the questions from those who know and those who think they know.

It might have to become my wet weather jersey.......

Nah, you just need to work on your sense of irony.

Do you remember the TISM hit from the 90's "(He'll Never Be An) Ol' Man River" ? Anytime someone asks you a question just start singing

I'm on the drug, I'm on the drug,
I'm on the drug that powered Lance Armstrong.

I saw his pedals thrashing round
I saw what was going down
I saw him taking EPOs
I said "I'll have some of those"

Levi had, Levi had
Levi had it in his veins


:D
Image . . . . . Image

boss
Posts: 1358
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 5:58 pm

Re: Livestrong gear - now less likely to wear?

Postby boss » Wed Oct 17, 2012 3:23 pm

Cardy George wrote:
master6 wrote:My 06 Trek in Discovery Channel blue livery is still a nice bike; nothing has changed. I think that drugged people have probably ridden most brands of bike.


Agreed, but now when I think about wearing my Commemorative Yellow Jersey with his name clearly written on it, I have to decide of I want field all the questions from those who know and those who think they know.

It might have to become my wet weather jersey.......


For me, it's not so much about the drugs... it's the fact he seems kinda like a jerk. If this were not a family friendly forum, I'd use much stronger language to describe his character!

I only recently got into road cycling, but am very into other facets of bike riding. I don't own any Livestrong stuff, and certainly wouldn't purchase any. I'd rather give my hard earned to another brand.

Two weeks ago, prior to reading the USADA's Reasoned Decision and Tyler Hamilton's book, I would have probably considered wearing Livestrong stuff!

One thing that I don't really get - is why all Lance's sponsors are standing by him. Surely they can see the writing on the wall.

User avatar
hannos
Posts: 4094
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2010 11:18 am
Location: Sydney

Re: Livestrong gear - now less likely to wear?

Postby hannos » Wed Oct 17, 2012 3:36 pm

jimboss wrote:One thing that I don't really get - is why all Lance's sponsors are standing by him. Surely they can see the writing on the wall.


But are these sponsors now actively using him or his brand for anything?
Will they renew the contracts when they expire?
And considering Lance's penchant for law suits, it might just be safer and simpler to let the contracts lapse.
2010 BMC SLC01

User avatar
jules21
Posts: 9998
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 11:14 pm
Location: deep in the pain cave

Re: Livestrong gear - now less likely to wear?

Postby jules21 » Wed Oct 17, 2012 3:38 pm

there's a guy i saw at the Audax Alpine Classic who was dressed up in all-Discovery Channel gear, with the Lance Trek bike - the whole deal, everything he was wearing and riding was Team DC/Lance based. i wonder how he feels now? :)

biftek
Posts: 475
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 8:57 am

Re: Livestrong gear - now less likely to wear?

Postby biftek » Wed Oct 17, 2012 3:57 pm

roller wrote:
zero wrote:Curing cancer in general is not aligned with its core objectives.


curing cancer would put it out of business.

that's the last thing lance wants, no more CA$$$H for him!

not just livestrong , but a host of other agencies , cancer council for example which spent $185k on an application for .cancerresearch and an annual registration fee of 25k
For the many hundred of millions of dollars that the cancer council has received, I'm not even sure what their mandate is anymore. I know once upon a time they were interested in curing cancer, but I think they realised that would put them out of a job.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: gavin_rider, minhyy