dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
10833
share rss forum feed


Blogger
Jedi Poster
Premium
join:2012-10-18
reply to ZZZZZZZ

Re: Armstrong getting caught up in lies

In ten years, probably less, doping or the use of PEDs will with restrictions and oversight be legal and controlled in many sports.



fatness
subtle
Premium,ex-mod 01-13
join:2000-11-17
fishing
kudos:14
reply to JRW2

said by JRW2:

For all of you who are relishing the take-down of Armstrong, you have also probably succeeded in taking down Cycling too...

People raced competitively on bicycles before there ever were sponsors. They'll continue to do with regardless of sponsorships or lack thereof.
--
my pants are parched and thirsty


fatness
subtle
Premium,ex-mod 01-13
join:2000-11-17
fishing
kudos:14
reply to ZZZZZZZ

The Livestrong foundation doesn't even fund cancer research. Hopefully some of the sponsors Livestrong is losing will end up sponsoring charities that actually do cancer research.

quote:
I found a curiously fuzzy mix of cancer-war goals like "survivorship" and "global awareness," labels that seem to entail plastering the yellow Livestrong logo on everything from T-shirts to medical conferences to soccer stadiums. Much of the foundation's work ends up buffing the image of one Lance Edward Armstrong, which seems fair--after all, Livestrong wouldn't exist without him. But Livestrong spends massively on advertising, PR, and "branding," all of which helps preserve Armstrong's marketability at a time when he's under fire. Meanwhile, Armstrong has used the goodwill of his foundation to cut business deals that have enriched him personally, an ethically questionable move.
12-page article from January 2012
--
my pants are parched and thirsty


Blogger
Jedi Poster
Premium
join:2012-10-18
Reviews:
·Champion Broadba..

Livestrong raises funds and awareness to help cancer survivors and those battling cancer in a variety of ways.

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance_Arms···undation

The Charity Navigator along with other such charity rating agency gives Livestrong very high marks for seeing that the percentage of money taken it is spent on the charitable goals:

»www.charitynavigator.org/index.c···gid=6570

quote:
"The Livestrong brand was more about the foundation and fighting cancer than it ever was about Lance Armstrong," Matt Powell, an analyst at consultancy SportsOneSource told the Wall Street Journal.

Still, in a philantropy.com article, Lenkowsky points out that unlike the case with many other celebrity charities, Armstrong embodies Livestrong's mission: he is a cancer survivor.

Kevin Gallivan, a 47-year-old cancer survivor, says that he, for one, is able to compartmentalize the scandal and the cause. "He can be a liar, and he is, but it's not going to affect my life in any way other than cancer," Gallivan told Businessweek. "I wear a Livestrong band on my wrist, and I will until the day I die."
»www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/1···080.html

And a broader view and different perspective on the foundation.

»www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati···ories%29

Make no mistake about it, the foundation and the massive amount or level of good it does and the incredible amount of money raised over the years could not have been accomplished without Lance Armstrong accomplishments cycling and the tremendous consistent personal amount of time he has spent in actively promoting the foundation and its goals.

Speaking global and societal basis it is a sad commentary to see so many haters as opposed to critics of Armstrong that want to tear down, attack or hurt him and anything or anybody he is associated with regardless of the goodness or worth of same.

Lots of people in every country oppose what they feel Armstrong represents. However, their motives vary as much as night and day. They speak with "immunity."

Those that to various degrees speak positively or in outright support of Armstrong are routinely verbally attacked on a personal level.

The Livestrong foundation will survive and continue its good works but it will unlikely ever reach the heights of success of the past.


fatness
subtle
Premium,ex-mod 01-13
join:2000-11-17
fishing
kudos:14

said by Blogger:

The Charity Navigator along with other such charity rating agency gives Livestrong very high marks for seeing that the percentage of money taken it is spent on the charitable goals:

»www.charitynavigator.org/index.c···gid=6570

I don't see where that link says where the money is spent.

REVENUE
Total Contributions $29,724,618
Program Service Revenue $653,958
Total Primary Revenue $30,378,576
Other Revenue $11,888,834
TOTAL REVENUE $42,267,410

EXPENSES
Program Expenses $25,329,225
Administrative Expenses $1,946,759
Fundraising Expenses $4,277,423
TOTAL FUNCTIONAL EXPENSES $31,553,407

Payments to Affiliates $0
Excess (or Deficit) for the year $10,714,003
--
my pants are parched and thirsty


fatness
subtle
Premium,ex-mod 01-13
join:2000-11-17
fishing
kudos:14

quote:
Most people—including nearly everybody I surveyed while reporting this story—assume that Livestrong funnels large amounts of money into cancer research. Nope. The foundation gave out a total of $20 million in research grants between 1998 and 2005, the year it began phasing out its support of hard science. A note on the foundation’s website informs visitors that, as of 2010, it no longer even accepts research proposals.

Nevertheless, the notion persists that Livestrong’s main purpose is to help pay for lab research into cancer cures. In an online “60 Minutes Overtime” interview after the May broadcast, CBS anchor Scott Pelley said Armstrong’s alleged misdeeds were mitigated because “he has raised hundreds of millions of dollars for cancer research.”

Pelley isn’t alone in getting that wrong: a search of The New York Times turns up dozens of hits for “Armstrong” and “cancer research.” An Associated Press story from August 2010 described Livestrong as “one of the top 10 groups funding cancer research in the United States.” The comments section of any article about Armstrong will inevitably include messages like this one from ESPN.com: “keep raising millions for cancer research lance, and ignore the haters.”
»www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-ad···l?page=3
--
my pants are parched and thirsty


fatness
subtle
Premium,ex-mod 01-13
join:2000-11-17
fishing
kudos:14

quote:
But the foundation’s financial reports from 2009 and 2010 show that Livestrong’s resources pay for a very large amount of marketing and PR. During those years, the foundation raised $84 million and spent just over $60 million. (The rest went into a reserve of cash and assets that now tops $100 million.)

A surprising $4.2 million of that went straight to advertising, including large expenditures for banner ads and optimal search-engine placement. Outsourcing is the order of the day: $14 million of total spending, or more than 20 percent, went to outside consultants and professionals. That figure includes $2 million for construction, but much of the money went to independent organizations that actually run Livestrong programs. For example, Livestrong paid $1 million to a Boston–based public-health consulting firm to manage its campaigns in Mexico and South Africa against cancer stigma—the perception that cancer is contagious or invariably fatal.

Livestrong touts its stigma programs, but it spent more than triple that, $3.5 million in 2010 alone, for merchandise giveaways and order fulfillment. Curiously, on Livestrong’s tax return most of those merchandise costs were categorized as “program” expenses. CFO Greg Lee says donating the wristbands counts as a program because “it raises awareness.”

This kind of spending dwarfs Livestrong’s outlays for its direct services and patient-focused programs like Livestrong at the YMCA, an exercise routine tailored to cancer survivors available at YMCAs nationwide ($424,000 in 2010). There’s also a Livestrong at School program, offered in conjunction with Scholastic magazine ($630,000 in 2010).
quote:
Livestrong spends as much on legal bills as on these two programs combined: $1.8 million in 2009–10, mainly to protect its trademarks. In one memorable case, its lawyers shut down a man in Oklahoma who was selling Barkstrong dog collars. Meanwhile, “benefits to donors” (also merchandise, as well as travel expenses for Livestrong Challenge fundraisers) accounted for another $1.4 million in spending in 2010.

There’s still a research department, but now it focuses on things like quality-of-life surveys of cancer survivors. During my visit, I was plied with glossy reports and brochures, which are cranked out by the truckload. The foundation’s 2010 copying-and-printing bill came to almost $1.5 million.

But Livestrong’s largest single project in 2009—indeed, the main focus of Armstrong’s comeback—was the Livestrong Global Cancer Summit, held in Dublin in August. The summit ate up close to 20 percent of the foundation’s $30 million in program spending that year.
--
my pants are parched and thirsty
Expand your moderator at work


Silvanos
It's a new Silvanos experience
Premium
join:2002-10-07
Tonawanda, NY
reply to ZZZZZZZ

UCI agrees to strip Armstrong of his 7 Tour titles

»sports.yahoo.com/news/uci-agrees···spt.html

''Lance Armstrong has no place in cycling and he deserves to be forgotten in cycling,'' McQuaid said at a news conference. ''This is a landmark day for cycling.''

They gone.
--
Any it new they in one. You here for mine you here.
-JV



JRW2
R.I.P. Mom, Brian, Ziggy, Max and Zen.
Premium
join:2004-12-20
La La Land
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Optimum Online

said by Silvanos:

''This is a landmark day for cycling.''

Yep, and it may be the very end of professional cycling as we know it too...
--
Politics is a disease, we need a cure!
In constant search for intelligent life on Earth!


drew
Automatic
Premium
join:2002-07-10
Port Orchard, WA
kudos:6

said by JRW2:

said by Silvanos:

''This is a landmark day for cycling.''

Yep, and it may be the very end of professional cycling as we know it too...

That's a much too USA-centric position. Cycling will continue to go on, but whether or not it'll remain popular in the states is another matter altogether.

I'd still like for some science to prove Armstrong doped, not testimony from other dopers.
--
flickr | 'Cause I've been waiting, all my life just waiting
For you to shine, shine your light on me


JRW2
R.I.P. Mom, Brian, Ziggy, Max and Zen.
Premium
join:2004-12-20
La La Land
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Optimum Online

said by drew:

I'd still like for some science to prove Armstrong doped, not testimony from other dopers.

So would I, and a years old sample, with a dubious chain of evidence, does not instill confidence in me that he did "dope"....
--
Politics is a disease, we need a cure!
In constant search for intelligent life on Earth!


drew
Automatic
Premium
join:2002-07-10
Port Orchard, WA
kudos:6

A guy I know who is a former USA Olympic Athlete and long-time acquantaince of Armstrong says the USADA has some solid science in their report and that it's worth the read.
--
flickr | 'Cause I've been waiting, all my life just waiting
For you to shine, shine your light on me

Expand your moderator at work


ZZZZZZZ
Premium
join:2001-05-27
PARADISE
kudos:1
reply to Anon

Well here we go

»rss.cnn.com/~r/rss/cnn_topstorie···dex.html

let everyone do dope.
--
~~Go Lions....back to back Cups!!~~



Blogger
Jedi Poster
Premium
join:2012-10-18
Reviews:
·Champion Broadba..

1 edit
reply to fatness

Re: Armstrong getting caught up in lies

If one were to do a full and complete in depth investigative background of the Livestrong foundation as well as other charitable involvement by Armstrong it would reveal that numerous long standing reputable standing organizations in addition to the one all ready identified, rate Livestrong as financially an up front top line charity and highly successful in achieving its publicly stated goals while successsfully directing the majority of its efforts and funds in that direction.

I personally have had nothing to do with the Livestrong Foundation. However, the leading cancer hospital in the nation the "City of Hope" is near me. I personally know that Armstrong and his foundation has done work on site there that was greatly received and appreciated by patients, their loved ones, and staff.

A long-time close friend of mine is a two-time cancer survivor and knows nothing about Armstrong in terms of being a sports fan, (she simply knows that he was famous and highly successful athlete in cycling but that is of no interest to her except in the narrow context of he achieved it after beating and recovering from his cancer.) She only truly knows him through his personal involvement with cancer survivors, their families and patients.

She is a retired successful investigative reporter, journalist and author that is closely associated in weekly activities with the City of Hope and to a much lesser extent with Armstrong and the foundation. She devotes a daily part of her life to cancer survivors and in addition those that currently suffer from the disease. Several of her books' royalties go 100 percent to the hospital.

She is at least one person that has nothing but praise for the Armstrong the humanitarian, citizen, person and his charity--not the celebrity or the guy in front of the camera. She has formed that opinion not only from her direct experience but also from her extensive interaction with hundreds of beneficiaries of the Livestrong foundation and from the personal level experience of Armstrong's direct contact with others she personally has witnessed. She is nationally known to be a person of the highest ethical moral standards.

All of the people I speak of are either cancer survivors, family of cancer survivors, cancer patients, or staff involved with the same and in that context based upon personal experience she thinks the guy is pretty special. She regards him not as a sports figure but as a cancer survivor and humanitarian. She has stated to me, “He is one of my heroes.”

It is not surprising that many people would incorrectly assume that Armstrong's foundation donates to cancer research given his battle with the disease and the formal and personal commitment he has directed toward cancer in a variety of ways, the leading example of many being his work toward survivors of cancer and their experiences and the impact on their lives and their loved ones.

If journalist of Scott Pelley stature and the editorial staff of Sixty Minutes can make such a public mistake it is not surprising that other would do so also. Armstrong can hardly be attacked for that.

What he can be is judged on an accurate assessment of his work with Livestrong.



Blogger
Jedi Poster
Premium
join:2012-10-18
Reviews:
·Champion Broadba..
reply to ZZZZZZZ

Re: Well here we go

Apparently in cycling they all ready do and have done so since at least the eighties. In the seventies I know they did it but they did it wrong. They use stimulants like amphetamines that physiologically really don't enhance performance. Plus they are dangerous to take under certain conditions as the Tour de France competitor that dropped stone cold dead at the crest of one the steepest and most famous climbs many years ago--from memory I would say it was in the seventies.

Look at the list of world records in track and field. Notice how even today so many are from the nineties and eighties! Here in 2012 so many records still stand. Gee, I wonder why that is so?

There are many other instances in many other sports. Remember when approximately 20-30 years ago, (tapping the aging memory here again), when the Chinese women's team that in their history had all ways sucked in swimming showed up at the Olympic games with the broad sloping shoulders and their knuckles dragging on the concrete? From no where the BLEW away everyone and just about in every race broke the world record. It goes on and on.

About 20 years a large poll was taken. Olympic athletes were asked a question that went something like this:

If you could take a substance that would guarantee you a gold medal winning performance but also would guarantee that you would die from it in five years would you take it? Ninety percent said yes. (Actually I can't remember if the will die period was one year or five years but since I can't remember I will go with the five and give the athletes the benefit of the "doubt.")

If you watch NFL panels on stations like ESPN and the NFL channel or other networks you will see here and there the discussion among former players that quit not that long ago and also the sports commentators on should PEDs be allowed in the NFL and regulated or should they be banned? From what I've heard it's about 50/50 on the couple of debated I've heard. The most common agreement from both side of the argument is that the playing field should be a level one.


loli
Premium
join:2002-08-26
South Richmond Hill, NY
reply to ZZZZZZZ

Re: Armstrong getting caught up in lies

»www.usatoday.com/story/sports/cy···1828311/

Woud love to see how he cheated the system. He's a dirtbag to me now.

quote:
Lance Armstrong plans to make an admission about doping in an interview with Oprah Winfrey scheduled to tape Monday at his home in Austin, Texas, a person with knowledge of the situation said.

In the interview, which is scheduled to air Thursday on the Oprah Winfrey Network, the famed cyclist plans to admit to doping throughout his career but probably will not get into great detail about specific cases and events, the person said. The person spoke to USA TODAY Sports on the condition of anonymity because the person was not authorized to speak publicly about it.