Armstrong charged and banned

[swansonj]

Can I just ask a genuine question of those of you who think Armstrong is an arrogant, cynical, cheating bully (and I'm not necessarily disputing that assessment here): what do you make of his cancer charity fundraising? Is Livestrong (a) a cynical attempt to put some cover over his darker side (b) remorse-cum-penance from someone who knows they are guilty and wishes to atone (c) a power/ego trip (d) a genuine attempt by a cancer survivor to use his success to help others - or something else?

 

[Noodley]

Probably d) with a bit of c) and a) added to the mix. And none of b).

 

[rich p]

I haven't done the research into that side myself, but I have read some pretty damning critiques of the money trail of Livestrong. Nothing illegal but channelled into his for-profit company. Someone with more knowledge will be along sometime.

 

[rich p]

I think in all likelihood that LA did dope, as I think it's inconceivable that someone so competitive would have sat back and watched those around him gain a 5 % advantage. My position is that he still beat them all on a -relatively -level playing field and we should cut the guy some slack in recognition for his achievements, both on and off the bike.

It was only a level playing field for those who could afford to dope as scientifically as he did though. 90% of the peloton wouldn't have had the means to do so. Not many domestiques would have been in a position to pay Dr FastCar $450,000 or benevolently donate £120,000 to the UCI.

 

[Noodley]

...and EPO turned donkeys into champions.

 

[Red Light]

Forgetting Wiggins on this thread as a bit of a red herring - can you clarify your position re Armstrong's alleged doping?
You think he did dope, you don't know, you don't care?

I think you missed a very important option in your multiple choice question. Can you spot what it is yet?

 

[raindog]

Can I just ask a genuine question of those of you who think Armstrong is an arrogant, cynical, cheating bully (and I'm not necessarily disputing that assessment here): what do you make of his cancer charity fundraising?

this is from a recent CyclingWeekly article, and they were always more or less pro-Armstrong

"On Friday a free supplement was given away by the Guardian newspaper in the UK called Overcoming Cancer. It was written and produced by Media Planet and it's cover featured a big picture of Armstrong riding in his Livestrong kit.
No doubt a coincidence, given the timing, it perfectly illustrates Armstrong's most powerful tool when it comes to fighting allegations of drug use.
He consistently uses his work for Livestrong as a promotional tool for himself, and hasn't been afraid of using it as a way of deflecting questions on doping. Questions have however been raised over the way that Livestrong spends it's money, and how much of that money Armstrong uses to fly around the world in his private jet.
Livestrong has admitted that they no longer give money to cancer research projects, and, although some money undoubtedly goes towards worthwhile projects, the bulk of it is spent on marketing and promotion. They say to raise the awareness of cancer, others may say it's to promote Armstrong's profile."

 

[yello]

what do you make of his cancer charity fundraising?

First thing I want to say to that question is that it's a totally separate issue for me. Armstrong the cyclist and Armstrong the cancer man are different entities for me. And I prefer to keep it that way because it otherwise becomes too emotive.

I know nothing (comparatively speaking) about Livestrong, though I'm aware of some criticism (from both haterz and otherwise) about the operation. I've thought some of that criticism to be over-the-top but, as I say, I don't know enough to judge.

All of that caveat out of the way, I think Livestrong (as in cancer support) is a), a genuine attempt to help. I think in terms of actual day-to-day operation, that Armstrong is perhaps little more than a figurehead or poster boy (to be expected really) and that there are some very committed and hard working people within the organisation. From what I have read, they do do valuable work in communities assisting cancer sufferers and families alike, with things like finding assistance either financial or medical etc. There is probably some ego involved in it but - and this might surprise some of you - I'd cut Armstrong some slack on that. I suspect most charitable works involves a bit of ego and I'm completely ok with that.

 

[Crackle]

I haven't done the research into that side myself, but I have read some pretty damning critiques of the money trail of Livestrong. Nothing illegal but channelled into his for-profit company. Someone with more knowledge will be along sometime.

There's an excellent but very long article here, written by Gifford, who Lance called a 'Hater'.

There are two seperate Livestrongs, a dot org and dot com. The latter is very much for profit and as the article explains, the interdependency between .org, .com and Lance is pretty hard to pick apart.

 

[yello]

There are two seperate Livestrongs, a dot org and dot com. The latter is very much for profit and as the article explains, the interdependency between .org, .com and Lance is pretty hard to pick apart.

I know the divisions are murky. BUT (and again I'm going to sound like I'm defending Armstrong!) I suspect no more or less murky than many business set-ups. That may not make it right (depending on your morality) but my guess is that it's all above board and legal. I'm sure that the general public might be equally surprised/disgusted if they saw the operation details of many a charity.

 

[Noodley]

He still doped.

 

[Andrew_P]

See, that's exactly the kind of baseless innuendo I have no time for. (Appreciate you're probably being a bit tongue in cheek though.)

d.

Not too unlike the LA attack of the Tour though are they, Team Sky is well funded and is defintely on a mission, you can sense it no?

 

[Andrew_P]

Probably d) with a bit of c) and a) added to the mix. And none of b).

There is a Jorno in the USA who goes further than that, now that above all else would piss me off. But I think the only evidence he could put forward was that it was not clear to an outsider that livestrong.com (top of all health and fitness searches on Google) was commercial and benefited LA and the .org was the charity. Also took a swipe at Livestrong stating that LA (I have never read or seen this)states that some of the funding went towards a cure. All the Livestrong PR I have seen is to help people get through the medical system and assistance.

 

[smutchin]

Not too unlike the LA attack of the Tour though are they...

Well, yes, there are superficial similarities. I've made that same glib observation myself elsewhere. Somewhat facetiously. It's not a comparison that stands up to much scrutiny though. Sky and USP/Discovery have far more points of difference than they have in common.

d.

 

[threebikesmcginty]

Has he fessed up yet?