open topic, for anything cycling related.
Well after 2 and a half months of waiting for my Monton order (never again will i buy from these clowns) i finally received my cycling gear only to realise i ordered livestrong gear. And now that all this Lance stuff is up in the air i am reluctant to wear it.
I dont want fellow cyclists forming the wrong opinion of me and my stance on drugs and Lance.
No matter what you think of Lance, he has at least created an organisation that has done more for cancer research than anybody else.
The organisation now stands alone, and should still be supported as an organisation that fights cancer.
"Pain is temporary. It may last a minute, or an hour, or a day, or a year, but eventually it will subside and something else will take its place. If I quit, however, it lasts forever" Lance Armstrong
I was bout the same the same thing...
The dutch have one word to describe the aussie MHL, this word is ;
How do you know the drugs he was on didnt cause his cancer?
His drug taking for as long as he has would have side affects,woudnt dought if cancer was one of them
Orbea Erandio Hybrid
I got a cycling gilet really cheap on eBay, it was $20 or so, turns out the team was kicked out in about 2002 for systematic doping.
La Comunitat Valencia I think they are called! I wear it with pride, I even buy valencia oranges when Coles stock them.
Would i wear something branded with anything associated with Lance Armstrong? No i would not.
Would i wear something ironic about Lance Armstrong such as something branded "Dopestrong"? Yes i would.
Agree it is a tough call.
The charity organisation has been politely seperated well by sponsors and media - no one wants to undo a good thing (I choose not to elaborate on Livestrong) but yes, it is tainted and there will now always be an association.
Send it back unless you think it will be worth something.
$5338 Raised for my Adelaide to Darwin charity ride:
Find out more and support: TourXOz Fundraising
As I understand it, and happy to be corrected.
The goal of livestrong is to support people who have cancer. A good thing.
Not to be confused with "fighting the cancer battle" "looking for the cure" "cancer research" or the other stuff the media raises.
And if you want to delve further there is some evidence to say they don't do their stated aim very well/efficiently.
Stuff Livestrong! There are far more worthy Org's here in Australia with Australians depending on them and the work they do! Hell, why not donate everything you can to the british RSPCA?! Who gives a toss about neglected and mistreated animals on our doorstep?!
Anything relating to Armstrong and his slush funds rightly deserves nothing from me!
The only good Cyclist is a Bicyclist
Huge fan of booted RGers who just can't help themselves
I'm glad someone finally put the truth about the Livestrong Foundation out there.
It isn't about cancer research, it's about cancer awareness, on that they have achieved their charter.
In the US they run seminars, the provide counselling to cancer sufferers & their families.
There is a claim that he bullied politicians to come speak at an awareness seminar, he had the leader of one potilical party speaking, he was trying to get the President as well, it is said he would rally those Livestrong supporters to vote against the President at the next election if he didn't speak. Does anyone understand the lobbying system that occurs in the US, how many lobbiests apply similar tactics on Congressmen & other elected officials daily, what Armstrong did was nothing unusual, the President couldn't attend & Armstrong didn't follow through with his threat, it was exactly that, a threat.
On the final point, they are a non-profit organisation, yes the spend 75% of their budget to raise money (I think the figure bandied around by some US charity organisation was they spent US$75M to raise US$100M, so the comment was they aren't very efficient), the buy product of spending money to raise money is that they raise buy selling merchandise, promoting the Livestrong name thus further raising awareness.
They (Livestrong Foundation) are fulfilling their charter, though Armstrong was Patron (President), he has very little to do with the running of the Foundation, yes they do very little (if anything) in Australia (they basically operate only in America), they are still a worthwhile Foundation to support.
By buying a Chinese made copy you are not even donating to the Livestrong Foundation, by wearing it you will be raising some awareness of the fight against cancer, wear the jersey, if you feel so you need to do something, donate $5 to the Cancer Foundation, I'm sure they'll appreciate the money.
Yep Armstrong probably did use EPO's, etc. the UCI are really to blame by setting the limit at 50% (one decent climb & you'd be under that, so what did they expect on a 21 day stage race?), they can ban Armstrong for life & ask for all the prize money back, but do it to every rider who cheated, so that means retrospectively testing every rider who rode in the last 10 or 15 years, this means that the UCI will be running cycling whilst looking backwards, not the greatest way to run anything. This is what annoys me the most about this whole sorry saga, the USADA didn't test all the riders in the 2012 Tour of California because they were too engrossed in the whole Armstrong saga, I think deep down everybody 'knew' they (the riders at that stage) were on something, but they're missing the current crop of dopers by not doing the testing.
How do they think any of this is good for the sport???
You dont know if he did or he didnt he just maybe could not sway enough voters.
There is a for profit and not for profit livestrong and its often very difficult to know which one the money is going to, from what I hear the for profit a lot goes straight to armstrong, the not for profit it goes to him in a round about way, paying for him to be a speaker, paying for his travel to events etc.
A better way of doing it but I dont know how anyone could promote anything to do with this guy.
This is where you are most wrong. If he gets away with it people in the future know they just need to keep it quiet for a certain amount of time and they get away with it. Ashenden (if you dont know who he is look him up and you might learn something) has been very critical of the testing system it cannot pick up micro-dosing EPO or homologous blood transfusions so just testing people is not enough. Cleaning up the past is part of cleaning up the future, and the way to do it is to break the omerta not just to test everyone as they still would not get all the dopers.
As Phil Skiba notes:
I think it is impossible to support Livestrong and not also support Lance, simply because they have branded it that way specifically. Livestrong is and always was intended to be Lance's self promotional vehicle.
No I wouldn't ware anything Livestrong, for all the reasons posted above.
Though that situation hasn't changed from 6, 12 or 24 months ago so I don't have any of his kit to worry about.
The world is round, so what seems like the end may actually be the beginning.
In your opinion, in fact I have donated monies to Livestrong for the last 6 years, I receive the same member emails & tweets as every other Livestrong member, never was there any request to vote for or against any political party
The US laws for not for profit organisations are similar to those in Australia, so I'm sure the IRS audit the books of Livestrong without any prejudice, I think they would have been caught & fined Livestrong if there was any illegal activity going on there, plus they would also be auditing his personal declarations as they do with anyone running or connected with a charity.
I think that your opinion on Armstrong using Livestrong as a money making operation may be a little out. Like Gates or Jobs, any philanthropist is heavily scrutinised by the IRS or relevant taxation department, I think that they would be more than adequate in discovering any 'irregularities' in Livestrong's bookkeeping if they were just a shelf company to fund Lance Armstrong or any other official of Livestrong.
I am most wrong with this??? So you are stating that my opinion is wrong?
So WADA is better off re-testing & pursuing athletes who no longer compete as testing gets better, rather than testing current athletes?
Is this what you have implying?
I know who Dr Michael Ashenden is, but I cannot find any evidence of him making such a statement, if he did I'm not sure he was claiming that chasing riders who have retired, etc. is better practice than testing current riders.
Two relevant interviews I've read of his are-
http://www.sbs.com.au/cyclingcentral/ne ... s-ashenden
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/usada-c ... enden-says
neither has anything reflecting the statement you have credited to him making.
He has been critical of the testing regime that the UCI has followed in the past, as I originally stated my opinion of the UCI allowing a 50% hematocrit level in 1996 was erroneous, as it only encouraged wholesale & systematic use of blood doping within the World Tour riders.
LIVESTRONG is a for-profit company that sells health and well-being solutions.
When you advertise LIVESTRONG by wearing LIVESTRONG gear, you're funneling people to the for profit website so in turn, Lance gets rich.
LIVESTRONG also happens to be the name of a charity that promotes cancer awareness.
the difference is in the .org and the .com
now i'm not sure about most people, but when i see "BRAND XYZ" on a t shirt and think to google/internet that brand, i'm automatically going to put BRANDXYZ.com into my browser, not BRANDXYZ.org
so it seems strange that LIVESTRONG.org does all it's advertising and promotion leaving off the .org
all the merchandise is LIVESTRONG
also, seems to be mostly about lance, pictures of lance, promoting lance.
so when you see an ad like this, paid for i bet by LIVESTRONG.org, who is the ad for? LIVESTRONG.org, or LIVESTRONG.com .
hang on i just watched it.
it's an ad for nike?
i was confused because i don't normally see cancer patients in nike ads.
who pays for the ads? who gets the benefits of the ads? seems fishy.
in other news, the guy ran the most sophisticated and biggest cheating scam ever in the history of sport
do you think he's not going to run the biggest charity scam ever in the history of charity scams too? hmmm. or does he deserve the benefit of the doubt?
Last edited by roller on Thu Oct 25, 2012 11:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
inflammatory statement or idea
Thanks for the discussion. I am probably not alone when I originally thought that Livestrong was about raising money for research to find a cure. Supporting cancer patients and families is also important though as the admin / overheads of this organisation have been discussed in detail, I am concerned about the administration & marketing expenses compared with other charity organisations.
$5338 Raised for my Adelaide to Darwin charity ride:
Find out more and support: TourXOz Fundraising
On your first comment you are not in USA why would he email you telling you not to vote for someone in the US election......
See his interview for 4corners he siad exactly that. Also they arent retesting Lance the positives they already had now they have the stories of the riders. The biggest thing needed to get rid of the drugs is to break the omerta. Spanish are still all for the omerta however as can be seen by all of them jumping to Lance's defense.
Yes it is worthwhile pursuing riders from the past to let the cheats know even if they get away with it now they wont forever, and I hope Lance gets jail time to keep those cheats thinking if I do cheat I might get thrown in jail. Also if it helps to clean out the dirty team managers, team doctors and management people (UCI) who are still in and around the sport in a very big way then yes it is more then worthwhile. Its not just about Lance. Infact I think half of all of team management should go. It kills me to see an unashamed doper such as Vino go into management.
Read rollers stuff about livestrong.
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/ ... ckgrounder
Watch this. Ashenden talks (AT) 46min in. The plasticisers test which was meant to help with blood transfusions he has said in articles works only if they took the transfusion in about the last 2 hours.
Who is online