Armstrong charged and banned

[DogTired]

But is there any proof of Rich P's allegations that Armstrong has been "filling his pockets"?
.

Not that I've come across. A few commentators have mentioned unease about LiveStrong but haven't been specific so that means nothing. Personally, looking at what the LAF annual reports specify as being produced it seems a bit light on 'fighting cancer' as opposed to talking about it, writing reports and campaigning - it really is quite an empty cupboard when you read it. There's nothing enduring in terms of fighting cancer, some education programs, thats about it. It does get through $50 million a year too.

McMilllan isnt about Mr McMillan, Wellcome isnt about Mr Wellcome - LAF does seem to be about LA though and without adding something new its not fighting cancer - supporting to some degree sufferers. The LAF will not improve cancer treatment, but may improve your external circumstances while you're ill.

Without research and/or peer-reviewed output its difficult to say just what it does or if its any good. Personally it seemed, weak, waffly, parochial and concerned with publicity and perception. How many quality man-years has it added to the lives of cancer sufferers?

 

[MacB]

But is there any proof of Rich P's allegations that Armstrong has been "filling his pockets"?

If true then the implications that Armstrong has been embezzling or misappropriating funds is something even darker, and these claims need to be substantiated.... it would be interesting to see the evidence behind the claims.

Look man, you've got to try to read nuance and get a flavour of how the corporate world works. Things move on and there's a very good reason that 'plausible deniability' became a buzz phrase. It's only idiots and losers that get caught with a hand in the till these days. But deals get done left, right and centre that you'll never find any paper trail on even with a full forensic audit. A lot of times there's not even been a verbal agreement, it's all part of the unwritten rules that cover mutual back scratching. They have it down to a fine art and it can be several people removed from the person of interest.

As a 'front' a large charitable organisation with a very woolly agenda is just about the perfect vehicle. You don't have to milk that front directly but you can use it to leverage all sorts of fun and games.

 

[Alun]

Look man, you've got to try to read nuance and get a flavour of how the corporate world works. Things move on and there's a very good reason that 'plausible deniability' became a buzz phrase. It's only idiots and losers that get caught with a hand in the till these days. But deals get done left, right and centre that you'll never find any paper trail on even with a full forensic audit. A lot of times there's not even been a verbal agreement, it's all part of the unwritten rules that cover mutual back scratching. They have it down to a fine art and it can be several people removed from the person of interest.

As a 'front' a large charitable organisation with a very woolly agenda is just about the perfect vehicle. You don't have to milk that front directly but you can use it to leverage all sorts of fun and games.

That would be a no, then?

 

[Red Light]

Without research and/or peer-reviewed output its difficult to say just what it does or if its any good. Personally it seemed, weak, waffly, parochial and concerned with publicity and perception. How many quality man-years has it added to the lives of cancer sufferers?

One unlikely “nav” beneficiary is cycling journalist Charles Pelkey, diagnosed last summer with male breast cancer. Pelkey has been a critic of Armstrong—“I don’t particularly like the man,” he says—but after he tweeted about his cancer, a Livestrong navigator contacted him to offer assistance. “There are really wonderful people who work there,” Pelkey says. “I respect everything they do.”​

http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoo...rong/Its-Not-About-the-Lab-Rats.html?page=all​

 

[Noodley]

And after all this waffle, he's still a huge drug trafficking dope cheat.

 

[DogTired]

One unlikely “nav” beneficiary is cycling journalist Charles Pelkey, diagnosed last summer with male breast cancer. Pelkey has been a critic of Armstrong—“I don’t particularly like the man,” he says—but after he tweeted about his cancer, a Livestrong navigator contacted him to offer assistance. “There are really wonderful people who work there,” Pelkey says. “I respect everything they do.”​

http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoo...rong/Its-Not-About-the-Lab-Rats.html?page=all​

Yep, that's a very interesting, well written article. Apart from the quoted bit above the rest damns with faint praise or is damning. Apparently “I think the product is hope,” says Mark McKinnon. But in 'Its not about the bike' LA's Dr says that cancer is an indiscriminate killer and personal attitude means nothing to the end result. So, from one perspective this is a waste of cash. If the funding produced a cure, this would give hope anyway.

"Not all the money goes where Livestrong says it goes,"

"IN ONE CASE, ARMSTRONG himself stood to profit from the sale of a major Livestrong asset"

"In certain instances, though, he has leveraged this charitable appeal for personal gain. During his comeback, the lines between Cancer Lance and Business Lance became especially blurry"

“It was a lot more difficult to raise $250 for Livestrong this year,” says one longtime foundation fundraiser. “People asked a lot more questions.”

Professor Zimbelman: "The issue with Lance Armstrong isn’t whether he has done good for cancer victims, but rather, whether he first cheated to beat his opponents, then used his fraudulent titles to help promote an organization that appears to do good but also enriches a fraudster."

 

[Red Light]

Yep, that's a very interesting, well written article. Apart from the quoted bit above the rest damns with faint praise or is damning. Apparently “I think the product is hope,” says Mark McKinnon. But in 'Its not about the bike' LA's Dr says that cancer is an indiscriminate killer and personal attitude means nothing to the end result. So, from one perspective this is a waste of cash. If the funding produced a cure, this would give hope anyway.

Correct, cancer does not respond to the attitude of the sufferer but there is much more to cancer than the medical treatment. Its a tough and gruelling treatment and people are facing their mortality probably for the first time and are in an emotional hell. It may not change the outcome but it sure as hell makes the journey more bearable for the individual and those close to them.

And early detection has a far greater effect on cancer survivability than any of the treatment improvements. So raising awareness, getting people to recognise the symptoms AND do something about them will save far more lives than an extra $500m research funding. The global spend on cancer research is about €14Bn p.a. so the LAF money would be a tiny additional drop in the ocean of research funding whereas funding to support cancer sufferers and those close to them on the journey they are embarking is a Cinderella area and LAF money can make a big difference.

 

[Noodley]

"The issue with Lance Armstrong isn’t whether he has done good for cancer victims, but rather, whether he first cheated to beat his opponents, then used his fraudulent titles to help promote an organization that appears to do good but also enriches a fraudster."

Welcome to my first ever sig line...

 

[yello]

I personally do not have Livestrong on trial here. I'm sure they have talented and committed people working for them and provide a service to people in need. I'm aware of the criticisms but have not looked at them sufficiently to form an opinion, and I think I'll leave it like that.

 

[Noodley]

I personally do not have Livestrong on trial here. I'm sure they have talented and committed people working for them and provide a service to people in need. I'm aware of the criticisms but have not looked at them sufficiently to form an opinion, and I think I'll leave it like that.

Hater

 

[yello]

Hell yes! Out and proud!

 

[lukesdad]

Strictly speaking correct no doubt but somewhat splitting hairs in my opinion. As the body in charge of the results management process, they have done all they have been required (and are empowered) to do. What happens after that ought be a formality.

Well thanks at least for clearing that one up.

 

[yello]

Oh just come out ld, you'll feel much happier for it!

 

[thom]

Phil Liggett appears to like LA:

 

[lukesdad]

Oh just come out ld, you'll feel much happier for it!

Hah... on Big Tex I don't give a hoot and never have done, didn't like him as a racer or a man. I feel genuine sadness for the millions he seems to have inspired to get on their bikes, follow racing and hang on to him as, I suppose a hero (not sure thats quite the description they should use perhaps their inspiration !) No one can alter the fact this is the case, uncomfortable for many of you I know. Nothing I suspect will change this, whether it be facts or ridicule. You are just going to have to live with that one.

However Big Tex and his mates have plummeted the sport into disrepute further than even I thought possible. The real crime to me,is how it was allowed to happen. Corruption drugs and bullying exsisted long before the presence of Big Tex , no action was taken,in fact it was quite openly promoted in many circles. This did not leave an open door for what was to come,it was an invite. Once big money started to enter the sport, its fate was sealed, (cycling is not alone in this). Whilst drugs and bullying are the symptom money is the cancer. To a certain extent we are all partially to blame, our thirst for more racing TV coverage,excitement etc. The Big Tex effect drew money into the sport and we lapped it up. The UCI and other custodians of the sport should have been the sports safeguards, but looking at history we should have known better.

My interest in the whole nasty affair is not really what happens to Big Tex, as ive indicated but what happens elsewhere within the sport, I'm not sure some are going to go quietly, and those waiting in the wings don't install me with confidence. The ASO are going to want to preserve the heritage of their events (I'd like to be a fly on the wall in their meetings) I think the UCI old guard are going to want to hang onto power for as long as they can, if only to clear out their cupboards before they go and will the replacements be any better ? What is interesting is how the teams react, to what happens at the other two.

As to events on the otherside of the pond. I would rather have seen the Federal case succeed Im still not sure exactly why it didn't its easy to say pressure was brought to bear hmm maybe but from the outset of the case we were told would run its course. Parts of the USADA investigation sit uncomfortably with me and as such so does the reach of their juristriction, although this now seems not to be as sweeping as was first thought.

I know to some of you the nailing of Big Tex is the main concern here fair enough , However my concerns lay in a different direction, in which nothing is certain.