Livestrong gear - now less likely to wear?

open topic, for anything cycling related.

Re: Livestrong gear - now less likely to wear?

Postby schroeds » Fri Oct 19, 2012 1:55 pm

Jean wrote: It was brilliant then, but it just seems grotesque now.


And really sad.
Buy my Look 595 frame/complete bike...just ask me!
User avatar
schroeds
 
Posts: 755
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 9:58 pm

by BNA » Fri Oct 19, 2012 2:16 pm

BNA
 

Re: Livestrong gear - now less likely to wear?

Postby sogood » Fri Oct 19, 2012 2:16 pm

greyhoundtom wrote:Just an absolutely brilliant duel.............for some you may need to ignore the splash screen at the end of the footage.

Isn't that a doper vs another doper? May the best dope win! Yes, very exciting for the spectators, the unsaid driver of money, sponsorship and drive to win at all cost.
Bianchi, Ridley, Montague, GT, Garmin and All things Apple :)
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.
User avatar
sogood
 
Posts: 16906
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: Livestrong gear - now less likely to wear?

Postby g-boaf » Fri Oct 19, 2012 2:18 pm

marinmomma wrote:Where do you draw the line with this???

Throw away your Trek bike now???

And don't forget that Mellow Johnny's kit that you have..... :roll:


1. Don't really care - never followed Lance Armstrong.
2. No - that's sacred and the bike was expensive, I don't have loads of disposable income
3. Never owned that.
g-boaf
 
Posts: 3851
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm

Re: Livestrong gear - now less likely to wear?

Postby JustJames » Fri Oct 19, 2012 2:29 pm

marinmomma wrote:Where do you draw the line with this???

Throw away your Trek bike now???

And don't forget that Mellow Johnny's kit that you have..... :roll:


Well, I've made my decision.

No more dating skinny blondes for me...and that's final!
My bike blog. Long on rumination, rambling and opinion. Why let facts ruin everything?

http://pedallingcharm.wordpress.com/
User avatar
JustJames
 
Posts: 501
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2011 12:50 am

Re: Livestrong gear - now less likely to wear?

Postby jamesn184 » Fri Oct 19, 2012 3:30 pm

Ill still wear my Livestrong Jawbones as they did cost me money in the end!
Image
jamesn184
 
Posts: 446
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 10:54 pm

Re: Livestrong gear - now less likely to wear?

Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Sat Oct 20, 2012 10:31 am

Some more of Lance's "goodness" coming to light.
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-860283
User avatar
Alex Simmons/RST
Expert
 
Posts: 3371
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm

Re: Livestrong gear - now less likely to wear?

Postby wombatK » Sat Oct 20, 2012 10:50 am

Alex Simmons/RST wrote:Some more of Lance's "goodness" coming to light.
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-860283

Many people with good intentions have been dudded. My daughter has a Livestrong jacket and has worn
it proudly before today, and had bought it plus wrist bands in the mistaken belief it was supporting cancer
research.

I'm thinking we should go buy some fabric paint so we can strike-out the "st" and put "W" in its place. Or
should we just cut it up for rags ?

Cheers
WombatK

Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us -Jerry Garcia
User avatar
wombatK
 
Posts: 5188
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:08 pm
Location: Yagoona, AU

Re: Livestrong gear - now less likely to wear?

Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Sat Oct 20, 2012 12:43 pm

wombatK wrote:Many people with good intentions have been dudded.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.p ... tcount=124
User avatar
Alex Simmons/RST
Expert
 
Posts: 3371
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm

Re: Livestrong gear - now less likely to wear?

Postby Evo6point5 » Tue Oct 30, 2012 9:39 pm

Some real conspiracy theorists on here and hilarious to read the endless discussions re what live strong does. Cycling has been for a long time such a snobbish sport, and I'm talking the recreational side eg. This site

Every second thread is about bagging someone out not as fashionable or knowledgeable. It seems that people thrive on the self imposed elitist feeling and the LA saga just helps people feel better about themselves against someone none of us using all drugs known to man could get close to beating.

LA was still, months ago, at the pointy end of triathlons and there is no doubting he is still an amazingly talented athlete.

It's almost laughable that people would now not wear live strong gear etc because of what others would think.

Tbh this is getting stupid. If live strong helps 1 person then <language> it, they've done more than people whinging on the net like spoiled children.

LA, the ultimate evil, for all his wrong doings etc and regardless of motivations which can be debated all day has still done more to help others than Any of us ever will.

Hate on haters, if that makes you feel superior.. Knock yourselves out.
Evo6point5
 
Posts: 107
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2011 4:56 pm
Location: Canning Vale

Re: Livestrong gear - now less likely to wear?

Postby RonK » Wed Oct 31, 2012 6:16 am

Evo6point5 wrote:Some real conspiracy theorists on here and hilarious to read the endless discussions re what live strong does. Cycling has been for a long time such a snobbish sport, and I'm talking the recreational side eg. This site

Every second thread is about bagging someone out not as fashionable or knowledgeable. It seems that people thrive on the self imposed elitist feeling and the LA saga just helps people feel better about themselves against someone none of us using all drugs known to man could get close to beating.

LA was still, months ago, at the pointy end of triathlons and there is no doubting he is still an amazingly talented athlete.

It's almost laughable that people would now not wear live strong gear etc because of what others would think.

Tbh this is getting stupid. If live strong helps 1 person then <language> it, they've done more than people whinging on the net like spoiled children.

LA, the ultimate evil, for all his wrong doings etc and regardless of motivations which can be debated all day has still done more to help others than Any of us ever will.

Hate on haters, if that makes you feel superior.. Knock yourselves out.

I couldn't help but wonder if you are an LA fan? :) :) :)
Cycle touring blog and tour journals: whispering wheels...
User avatar
RonK
 
Posts: 5236
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 2:08 pm
Location: Brisbane, Queensland

Re: Livestrong gear - now less likely to wear?

Postby TDC » Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:37 am

Evo6point5 wrote:Some real conspiracy theorists on here and hilarious to read the endless discussions re what live strong does. Cycling has been for a long time such a snobbish sport, and I'm talking the recreational side eg. This site

Every second thread is about bagging someone out not as fashionable or knowledgeable. It seems that people thrive on the self imposed elitist feeling and the LA saga just helps people feel better about themselves against someone none of us using all drugs known to man could get close to beating.

LA was still, months ago, at the pointy end of triathlons and there is no doubting he is still an amazingly talented athlete.

It's almost laughable that people would now not wear live strong gear etc because of what others would think.

Tbh this is getting stupid. If live strong helps 1 person then <language> it, they've done more than people whinging on the net like spoiled children.

LA, the ultimate evil, for all his wrong doings etc and regardless of motivations which can be debated all day has still done more to help others than Any of us ever will.

Hate on haters, if that makes you feel superior.. Knock yourselves out.


Yeah, I'm still wearing my Bernie Maddof signature jacket too.
TDC
 
Posts: 560
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 8:37 pm
Location: Adelaide


Re: Livestrong gear - now less likely to wear?

Postby hazmat5765 » Wed Oct 31, 2012 11:09 am

Evo6point5 wrote:Some real conspiracy theorists on here and hilarious to read the endless discussions re what live strong does. Cycling has been for a long time such a snobbish sport, and I'm talking the recreational side eg. This site

Every second thread is about bagging someone out not as fashionable or knowledgeable. It seems that people thrive on the self imposed elitist feeling and the LA saga just helps people feel better about themselves against someone none of us using all drugs known to man could get close to beating.

LA was still, months ago, at the pointy end of triathlons and there is no doubting he is still an amazingly talented athlete.

It's almost laughable that people would now not wear live strong gear etc because of what others would think.

Tbh this is getting stupid. If live strong helps 1 person then <language> it, they've done more than people whinging on the net like spoiled children.

LA, the ultimate evil, for all his wrong doings etc and regardless of motivations which can be debated all day has still done more to help others than Any of us ever will.

Hate on haters, if that makes you feel superior.. Knock yourselves out.

Well said Evo6point5.
User avatar
hazmat5765
 
Posts: 195
Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2009 10:29 pm
Location: Coffs Harbour NSW

Re: Livestrong gear - now less likely to wear?

Postby Jono L. » Wed Oct 31, 2012 12:14 pm

Evo6point5 wrote:
Hate on haters, if that makes you feel superior.. Knock yourselves out.

It does. :)
Jono L.
 
Posts: 176
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 7:12 pm

Re: Livestrong gear - now less likely to wear?

Postby fitz » Wed Oct 31, 2012 8:37 pm

Evo6point5 wrote:Some real conspiracy theorists on here and hilarious to read the endless discussions re what live strong does. Cycling has been for a long time such a snobbish sport, and I'm talking the recreational side eg. This site

Every second thread is about bagging someone out not as fashionable or knowledgeable. It seems that people thrive on the self imposed elitist feeling and the LA saga just helps people feel better about themselves against someone none of us using all drugs known to man could get close to beating.

LA was still, months ago, at the pointy end of triathlons and there is no doubting he is still an amazingly talented athlete.

It's almost laughable that people would now not wear live strong gear etc because of what others would think.

Tbh this is getting stupid. If live strong helps 1 person then <language> it, they've done more than people whinging on the net like spoiled children.

LA, the ultimate evil, for all his wrong doings etc and regardless of motivations which can be debated all day has still done more to help others than Any of us ever will.

Hate on haters, if that makes you feel superior.. Knock yourselves out.


I have avoided weighing in on the Lance debate this far but man, this kind of balderdash gets me. This is not meant to be personal, this kind of stuff gets rehashed on forums all the time. I'm no hater but you can now see the man for what he is. There are a number of things about these kind of posts that really get to me.
The first is that the man hides behind his "charity" and foundation work.
This can happen 'cause people still, in 2012, get all worked up about cancer. Its a disease and a very common one in all its various forms. Hey, there are a hell of a lot worse diseases out there by a long mile. Diseases that folk just dont seem to get so prickly about. So ease up on the "you cant talk like that cause my insert friend/family member had X and so I know what I'm talking about".
I would wager there is not a single member on this forum who has not known someone affected by a cancer. Let alone a lot who's work is in some way connected.
Next the charity pie is only so big. Remember Aceh, the local charities were strapped for a year afterwards on account of the money that went to the tsunami fund. They just got a bigger slice of the pie that year. Armstrong just collecting more of the pie while he could for his own outfit. Now that is not to say there are no people in his organisation who do good work, I'm sure there are. But the way he went about it, the cheating, lying, bullying and intimidation.....
The evidence is out there if you care to look. Defending him on account of his cancer charity is lame.

God only knows what drove him but I would hate to think any kids look to him as a role model knowing now what the man really is.
Can I have some of these?
User avatar
fitz
 
Posts: 820
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 7:01 pm

Re: Livestrong gear - now less likely to wear?

Postby Evo6point5 » Thu Nov 01, 2012 7:08 pm

Good points and im bot trying to "win" the discussion, was just sharing my views. I'm not defending him at all. None of us know the "truth" but regardless...

The point I was making is that to become engrossed with attempting to discredit a charity because of his involvement with it serves no gainful purpose and that, using the worst estimates of overhead expenditure etc, that they have provided huge amounts of assistance to individuals. To preach venom about a charity because of his association seems rather spiteful to me but each to their own

I'm also not sure you can say one terminal disease is "worse" than another but that's another whole discussion.

And to the extremely witty response thinking I must be an LA fan? Is that what it is these days? I'm either with you or against you? I've never followed him as a fan per se but it's clearly obvious that he had been and is extremely physically fit and I respect that in any athlete. Drugs aside, I wish I was half as fit as he still is today. If being an LA fan is the latest insult that's fine. I've never found it healthy to be consumed with jealousy and hate which tbh suffocates the cycling culture to a large degree.
Evo6point5
 
Posts: 107
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2011 4:56 pm
Location: Canning Vale

Re: Livestrong gear - now less likely to wear?

Postby master6 » Thu Nov 01, 2012 7:27 pm

hazmat5765 wrote:
Evo6point5 wrote: Cycling has been for a long time such a snobbish sport

I wont argue the point about the present, however I can assure you that this was not the case "a long time" ago. Cycling was a sport for blue collar workers, regarded as "strong in the legs, and weak in the head. Cyclists were pitied, and kind people motoring would offer the poor beggars a lift. Riding a bike to work was a certain sign of lack of achievement. Far, far from "snobbish".
master6
 
Posts: 2648
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 4:37 pm
Location: depends on who is asking, and why.

Re: Livestrong gear - now less likely to wear?

Postby Evo6point5 » Sat Nov 03, 2012 8:00 pm

master6 wrote:
hazmat5765 wrote:
Evo6point5 wrote: Cycling has been for a long time such a snobbish sport

I wont argue the point about the present, however I can assure you that this was not the case "a long time" ago. Cycling was a sport for blue collar workers, regarded as "strong in the legs, and weak in the head. Cyclists were pitied, and kind people motoring would offer the poor beggars a lift. Riding a bike to work was a certain sign of lack of achievement. Far, far from "snobbish".

Fair point. Probably different perceptions of "a long time" :)
Evo6point5
 
Posts: 107
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2011 4:56 pm
Location: Canning Vale

Re: Livestrong gear - now less likely to wear?

Postby master6 » Sun Nov 04, 2012 11:30 am

Evo6point5 wrote:Fair point. Probably different perceptions of "a long time" :)


Hazmat5765 appears to be aged around 56, while I am 64, so a "long time" back to our childhood is not vastly different, however he might be thinking back to the time he started his current cycling habit, and we might have a vast difference in that measurement.
I agree; Fair point :D

I was thinking back to my first competitive cycling experience around 1958, and I dont think much changed until the early 80's. One slow but constant change was the improvement in cars and roads, which resulted in us travelling further afield for competition.

The "snobby" bit might have started to creep in during the late 80's/early 90's. During that period the top of line bikes began to appear outside coffee shops. In fact, coffee shops attracted better (I mean, more expensive) bikes than local cycling club events did.
master6
 
Posts: 2648
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 4:37 pm
Location: depends on who is asking, and why.

Re: Livestrong gear - now less likely to wear?

Postby AUbicycles » Sun Nov 04, 2012 7:23 pm

Spotted a rider in Mellow Johnny knicks today, guess it caught my attention more than it normally would but hey, they're just a pair of knicks.
User avatar
AUbicycles
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8914
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:14 am
Location: Sydney

Re: Livestrong gear - now less likely to wear?

Postby Fylystyne1 » Mon Jan 28, 2013 4:09 pm

The way to get this PED issue taken seriously is to boycott the sponsors. If only for a short while. If we all refused to buy equipment and clothing for three or six months where was clear evidence (or well founded suspicion) of a sponsored rider using PEDs then the sponsors would have some serious 'skin in the game' -and a strong imperative to be a lot stronger in their policies and practices to sponsoring (and more strenuous about the contracts that they sign).

If we don't do this then there will be another Lance just around the corner. So lets not buy Oakley, or trek, or Nike, etc for a while. Sponsors are a central part of the machinery they sustains both the sport (a good thing) but also a part of the machinery that rewards its culture and behaviour. Even if their sponsoring of the guilty is honestly inadvertent (as opposed to them professing ignorance in the face of compelling evidence) they should be forced to take notice and act. They do after all make a bucket load of money from PED related misbehaviour ( as well as the acts of 'clean' athletes). And this money comes from us, the recreational riders.

So whilst I am in the market for a new bike and equipment there are some brands that I will not be spending my $10k on. A small but important gesture. Join me.
Fylystyne1
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 2:39 pm

Re: Livestrong gear - now less likely to wear?

Postby drubie » Mon Jan 28, 2013 9:48 pm

Fylystyne1 wrote:The way to get this PED issue taken seriously is to boycott the sponsors. ... So lets not buy Oakley, or trek, or Nike, etc for a while. ... that I will not be spending my $10k on. A small but important gesture. Join me.


You will struggle to spend your 10k on a K-mart Huffy Fylystyne1, since that will be your only choice when you go shopping.

Well, maybe you'll be happy on 10k (and 30kg) of Surly LHT or something. Seriously, the vast majority of cycling companies are run by spivs of one sort or another - I'm pretty sure Trek (for example) are not directly responsible for cheating in pro cycling in the same way Gray Nicolls aren't responsible for our wonderful cricket team and their various betting activities. There is no way to avoid spivs and no way to sensibly boycott them in any way that'll hurt their business in any meaningful way. Business is spivvery of one sort or another, to avoid it you'd pretty much have to stop buying anything.
So we get the leaders we deserve and we elect, we get the companies and the products that we ask for, right? And we have to ask for different things. – Paul Gilding
but really, that's rubbish. We get none of it because the choices are illusory.
User avatar
drubie
 
Posts: 4616
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 10:12 am
Location: New England

Re: Livestrong gear - now less likely to wear?

Postby Nobody » Mon Jan 28, 2013 10:13 pm

drubie wrote:Well, maybe you'll be happy on 10k (and 30kg) of Surly LHT or something.
Why are people so unkind? :wink: Just a wee bit of an exaggeration there drubie? More like 12 or 13Kg. You must be thinking of Velomobiles, which incidentally you can spend 10K on. :P
Nobody
 
Posts: 6626
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Livestrong gear - now less likely to wear?

Postby gururug » Tue Jan 29, 2013 8:19 am

Who's going to lay down chalk this year??? CleanBottleChalkbot? NissanLeafBot?

They certainly created a brand around "fighting cancer" and "beating the odds".....

Just need to change their name to SellStrong or TalkStrong and they'll be right :wink:
User avatar
gururug
 
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2007 11:05 pm

Re: Livestrong gear - now less likely to wear?

Postby Mike Ayling » Tue Jan 29, 2013 9:53 am

Nobody wrote:
drubie wrote:Well, maybe you'll be happy on 10k (and 30kg) of Surly LHT or something.
Why are people so unkind? :wink: Just a wee bit of an exaggeration there drubie? More like 12 or 13Kg. You must be thinking of Velomobiles, which incidentally you can spend 10K on. :P


Or are you guilty of the aforementioned snobbery, Drubie?

Mike
Mike Ayling
 
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 7:26 pm

Previous

Return to General discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot]



Popular Bike Shops
Torpedo 7 Torpedo7 AU
Ground Effect Ground Effect NZ
Chain Reaction Cycles CRC UK
Wiggle Wiggle UK
Ebay Ebay AU



InTouch with BNA
“Bicycles BNA Twitter
“Bicycles BNA Facebook
“Google+ BNA Google+
“Bicycles BNA Newsletter