To those that still believe Lance was clean, listen to this:

135

Comments

  • Kléber
    Kléber Posts: 6,842
    Pat, I can't check Leguape's figures but the latest accounts on Oxfam show the following:

    Total incoming resources: 310.5
    Net incoming resources available for charitable application: 233.3

    So that means £77 million is spent on admin, making it 25% of the total funds generated, a sum which includes government payments, not just charitable donations. See for yourself at http://www.oxfam.org.uk/resources/downl ... ts06_7.pdf, happy to be proved wrong.
  • Pat Murray
    Pat Murray Posts: 95
    In response to Kleber.

    Have a proper read of the accounts - its all in there. Charities have both restricted and unrestricted funds, to make the leap from incoming resources to charitable expenditure = admin ratio, without understanding the nature of the resources and the constraints is a to simplistic.

    The Charity Commission and the Advertising Standards Authority would both be on the case if they misrepresented their administration costs.

    Besides if you read the report in full you may be inspired to support their work!
  • Stewie Griffin
    Stewie Griffin Posts: 4,330
    Late 80's early 90's my then GF worked in Credit Control for a large Mercedes Dealership in London. A large well known International Human Rights Charity were one of their biggest accounts and my GF dealt regularly with their Accounts dept. She got to know someone in their Accounts fairly well through their regular dealings and found out that the firm paid for car repairs and didnt pass the cost on to the driver at all. She later found out that it didnt stop at car repairs, it included holidays and contributions to school fees amongst other things too.

    I remember a large Childrens Charity recently being slammed for spending more on advertising and admin than on Children.

    Dr Barnardos are the only Charity I make any donations to anymore. We have a collection box at home which we put small change in and when its full we send them a Cheque.

    WARNING, dont give ANY Charity your details. We might have to get an injunction against them for harrasement soon.
  • Pat Murray
    Pat Murray Posts: 95
    Stewie Griffin wrote:
    Late 80's early 90's my then GF worked in Credit Control for a large Mercedes Dealership in London. A large well known International Human Rights Charity were one of their biggest accounts and my GF dealt regularly with their Accounts dept. She got to know someone in their Accounts fairly well through their regular dealings and found out that the firm paid for car repairs and didnt pass the cost on to the driver at all. She later found out that it didnt stop at car repairs, it included holidays and contributions to school fees amongst other things too.

    Such action would be illegal as anyone who has ever prepared a company annual payroll return will tell you - a declaration needs to be signed.

    How I love all these hearsay evidence – I particularly like the idea of these workers from a “International Human Rights Charity” driving around in Mercedes and going on free “holidays”!

    I give to a number of Charities, including Oxfam. I do so in the knowledge that their actions are controlled by the Charities Commission. We can all spout “the friend of a friend” tale.
    Fact 1: If UK Charities behaved as is being suggested here then action would be taken against them.
    Fact 2: These unsubstantiated rumours put forward on here may dissuade (provide an excuse for?) others from supporting the good work undertaken.
  • Stewie Griffin
    Stewie Griffin Posts: 4,330
    I fully admit to having an axe to grind with the same "International Human Rights Charity" after they took my then employer to Court (successfully somehow) to force us to accommodate a HIV+ Overstayer under the National Assistance Act 1948 after we advised him that he could return home for treatment. They argued that he might not get the treatment at home so we accommodated him and the NHS paid for his treatment. He effed off home 6 Months later.

    Water under the bridge I guess, but I wasnt fibbing about what I was told a long time ago, honest.
  • method
    method Posts: 784
    leguape wrote:
    Fair enough, the charity isn't particularly well administered but it's hardly Oxfam spending 80% on admin (as they were in the not so distant past). That report seems to be into

    Utter b*llocks. Where that may have come from was the report that their shops were making something in the region of 30% profit, which isn't bad when you consider overheads. It had nothing to do with donations.
  • bantam_1954
    bantam_1954 Posts: 5
    Ther are millions of people working hard for cancer charities and others who do not find the need to self publicity. Armstrong is only interested in armstrong and no one else.
  • colint
    colint Posts: 1,707
    Is that supposed to be a serious comment ? He uses his "celebrity" status to open doors that a normal charity worker couldn't, I'm amazed that that needs explaining. Why do you think the UN etc drag various actors, popstars in to be envoys ? Becasue of their indepth knowledge the issue or becasue then can generate more publicity.
    Planet X N2A
    Trek Cobia 29er
  • Chucky212
    Chucky212 Posts: 73
    Lance spoke about "the old generation", Carlos Sastre and why he cam e back in an interview in Snowmass after his Livestrong team won the 12 hours of snowmass endurance race:

    http://www.superhumanmag.com/content/view/909/92/
  • PauloBets
    PauloBets Posts: 108
    I am amazed at you bunch of losers who criticise Lance Armstrong so much and ignore the general situation in which they operate. Grow the f#ck up
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    PauloBets wrote:
    I am amazed at you bunch of losers who criticise Lance Armstrong so much and ignore the general situation in which they operate. Grow the f#ck up

    Well put.

    Dennis Noward
  • Jez mon
    Jez mon Posts: 3,809
    PauloBets wrote:
    I am amazed at you bunch of losers who criticise Lance Armstrong so much and ignore the general situation in which they operate. Grow the f#ck up

    I'm amazed by how quickly Lance fans seem to resort to personal attacks.
    You live and learn. At any rate, you live
  • jimmythecuckoo
    jimmythecuckoo Posts: 4,718
    :)
    http://fendrieneu.home.blog
    My blog and pod...
    Beers of Belgium Cycling Club UK
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    Jez mon wrote:
    PauloBets wrote:
    I am amazed at you bunch of losers who criticise Lance Armstrong so much and ignore the general situation in which they operate. Grow the f#ck up

    I'm amazed by how quickly Lance fans seem to resort to personal attacks.

    I'm amazed by how people with no real knowledge of what is or was happening can
    call a person they have never met a liar, cheat, druggie, etc. and then take offence
    when someone calls them an idiot or loser. I think that there is an old saying "don't
    dish it out if you can't take it". A lot of people are claiming to know "it all" about Lance.
    It has even been suggested, in this post, that the reason he never tested positive is
    that he was using "undetectable" or possibly even "secret" drugs. And you want me to
    believe ANY of this?? Losers is not too strong of a word, I do believe. F#ck, well maybe.

    Dennis Noward
  • Kléber
    Kléber Posts: 6,842
    dennisn wrote:
    I'm amazed by how people with no real knowledge of what is or was happening cancall a person they have never met a liar, cheat, druggie, etc. and then take offence when someone calls them an idiot or loser.
    Welcome to the internet :wink:
    dennisn wrote:
    It has even been suggested, in this post, that the reason he never tested positive is that he was using "undetectable" or possibly even "secret" drugs. And you want me to believe ANY of this??
    Many riders were using EPO when it was undetectable, many were using blood doping when it was undetectable. Ask Victor Conte and his Balco colleagues. Ask Ricardo Ricco using his up to now undetectable CERA.
  • andyp
    andyp Posts: 10,549
    dennisn wrote:
    It has even been suggested, in this post, that the reason he never tested positive is
    that he was using "undetectable" or possibly even "secret" drugs. And you want me to
    believe ANY of this??
    Do an internet search on Mauro Gianetti and PFC. Then you'll find that there are documented cases of professional cyclists using drugs that are not commercially available to dope with.
  • Jez mon
    Jez mon Posts: 3,809
    dennisn wrote:
    Jez mon wrote:
    PauloBets wrote:
    I am amazed at you bunch of losers who criticise Lance Armstrong so much and ignore the general situation in which they operate. Grow the f#ck up

    I'm amazed by how quickly Lance fans seem to resort to personal attacks.

    I'm amazed by how people with no real knowledge of what is or was happening can
    call a person they have never met a liar, cheat, druggie, etc. and then take offence
    when someone calls them an idiot or loser. I think that there is an old saying "don't
    dish it out if you can't take it". A lot of people are claiming to know "it all" about Lance.
    It has even been suggested, in this post, that the reason he never tested positive is
    that he was using "undetectable" or possibly even "secret" drugs. And you want me to
    believe ANY of this?? Losers is not too strong of a word, I do believe. F#ck, well maybe.

    Dennis Noward

    I think if I was offended, I would have used the following emoticon :cry: . But I wasn't, I was merely commenting on the post.

    You ridicule the ideas of undetectable/secret drugs. Well, when the first generation of EPO was used in sports, it was both undetectable and pretty secret. Then there are the various designer drugs that lead to the BALCO scandal. But hey, why bother taking recent history into account.

    So sure, I don't have first hand experiance, BUT there is evidence that make it probable that Lance and his team were doping. The reason he never tested positive, could well be that he was clean. HOWEVER, Jan Ullrich, Ivan Basso, Marion Jones and a whole load of other sporting professionals never tested positive and yet doped.
    You live and learn. At any rate, you live
  • PauloBets
    PauloBets Posts: 108
    Jez mon wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    Jez mon wrote:
    PauloBets wrote:
    I am amazed at you bunch of losers who criticise Lance Armstrong so much and ignore the general situation in which they operate. Grow the f#ck up

    I'm amazed by how quickly Lance fans seem to resort to personal attacks.

    I'm amazed by how people with no real knowledge of what is or was happening can
    call a person they have never met a liar, cheat, druggie, etc. and then take offence
    when someone calls them an idiot or loser. I think that there is an old saying "don't
    dish it out if you can't take it". A lot of people are claiming to know "it all" about Lance.
    It has even been suggested, in this post, that the reason he never tested positive is
    that he was using "undetectable" or possibly even "secret" drugs. And you want me to
    believe ANY of this?? Losers is not too strong of a word, I do believe. F#ck, well maybe.

    Dennis Noward



    I think if I was offended, I would have used the following emoticon :cry: . But I wasn't, I was merely commenting on the post.

    You ridicule the ideas of undetectable/secret drugs. Well, when the first generation of EPO was used in sports, it was both undetectable and pretty secret. Then there are the various designer drugs that lead to the BALCO scandal. But hey, why bother taking recent history into account.

    So sure, I don't have first hand experiance, BUT there is evidence that make it probable that Lance and his team were doping. The reason he never tested positive, could well be that he was clean. HOWEVER, Jan Ullrich, Ivan Basso, Marion Jones and a whole load of other sporting professionals never tested positive and yet doped.

    But he , if he did dope, was given that situation, could not really avoid it like the 100s of others.
    Just cause you hate Americans or hate people who prioritise one race as the best race and reduce others to minor events in the eyes of the media, or cause you just don't like big winners, is not a stance from which to objectively criticise LA
  • afx237vi
    afx237vi Posts: 12,630
    PauloBets wrote:
    But he , if he did dope, was given that situation, could not really avoid it like the 100s of others.
    Just cause you hate Americans or hate people who prioritise one race as the best race and reduce others to minor events in the eyes of the media, or cause you just don't like big winners, is not a stance from which to objectively criticise LA

    :roll:
  • PauloBets
    PauloBets Posts: 108
    afx237vi wrote:
    PauloBets wrote:
    But he , if he did dope, was given that situation, could not really avoid it like the 100s of others.
    Just cause you hate Americans or hate people who prioritise one race as the best race and reduce others to minor events in the eyes of the media, or cause you just don't like big winners, is not a stance from which to objectively criticise LA

    :roll:
    :roll:
  • idaviesmoore
    idaviesmoore Posts: 557
    PauloBets wrote:
    [Just cause you hate Americans

    Sorry, I'm confused. Was hate ever mentioned. :?
    'How can an opinion be bullsh1t?' High Fidelity
  • PauloBets
    PauloBets Posts: 108
    idaviesmoore wrote:
    PauloBets wrote:
    [Just cause you hate Americans

    Sorry, I'm confused. Was hate ever mentioned. :?

    lol...hundreds of messages criticising him...answer the questions caller..there were other parts of my message you avoid...as you avoid the bigger picture!
  • idaviesmoore
    idaviesmoore Posts: 557
    PauloBets wrote:
    [

    lol...hundreds of messages criticising him...answer the questions caller..there were other parts of my message you avoid...as you avoid the bigger picture!

    :shock: Crazy talk, fella, crazy talk (walks away shaking his head) :!:
    'How can an opinion be bullsh1t?' High Fidelity
  • PauloBets
    PauloBets Posts: 108
    idaviesmoore wrote:
    PauloBets wrote:
    [

    lol...hundreds of messages criticising him...answer the questions caller..there were other parts of my message you avoid...as you avoid the bigger picture!

    :shock: Crazy talk, fella, crazy talk (walks away shaking his head) :!:

    we need balance on here...not people who pretend they are experts yet they have not raced much and also don't know the inside track and never worked within cycling..hence their views are what they read in mags and www gossip...not informed comment
  • afx237vi
    afx237vi Posts: 12,630
    Balance, right. Like joining a forum and immediately making sweeping statements about people hating Americans. Very balanced.
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    All of this is just a bunch of conspiracy theory cr*p. Of course Lee Harvey Oswald
    couldn't have acted alone in killing President Kennedy because, well he just couldn't
    have. Somewhere near 50(guess on my part) books have been written on the subject
    and to this day no one but Lee Oswald has been proven to have had anything to do with it.
    Of course Lance doped because, well how could he win 7 tours without it? And what about those undetectable drugs? My god, he must have. It's not possible without drugs.
    At least that's what I've read in books and on the Internet. All really good reasons to
    write in and call someone cheat, liar, and druggie and fully expect people to take you
    seriously. It's great conspiracy theory stuff and will probably go on for a long time.
    Just as some can't believe that one small insignificant man could kill someone as important as the President, by himself no less, that he had to have help, some believe
    that a man named Lance couldn't possibly be strong enough to do what he did without help. Believe what you will, but writing in and slandering someone with, at best, hearsay
    doesn't appeal to me and I will slander you right back and you won't like it(go figure).
    And before you say "childish" I'll say "oh yeah" works both ways.

    Dennis Noward
  • andrewgturnbull
    andrewgturnbull Posts: 3,861
    Hi Dennis.

    I've been avoiding all these threads like a rash... But I just have to chip in here and say that I'm really suprised by your thinking here.

    You of all people? Your down-to-earth, old school cynisms works great over on the tech threads - why don't you apply a bit of that here?

    Cheers, Andy
    http://www.andyturnbull.co.uk
    http://www.stirlingtri.co.uk
  • Patrick1.0
    Patrick1.0 Posts: 290
    Kléber wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    I'm amazed by how people with no real knowledge of what is or was happening cancall a person they have never met a liar, cheat, druggie, etc. and then take offence when someone calls them an idiot or loser.
    Welcome to the internet :wink:
    dennisn wrote:
    It has even been suggested, in this post, that the reason he never tested positive is that he was using "undetectable" or possibly even "secret" drugs. And you want me to believe ANY of this??
    Many riders were using EPO when it was undetectable, many were using blood doping when it was undetectable. Ask Victor Conte and his Balco colleagues. Ask Ricardo Ricco using his up to now undetectable CERA.

    Let's not forget, Contador beat Ricco, the same guy who got chucked out of the Tour for using CERA. And judging by the anti-Lance groups own arguments, that can't be done unless Contador was using something as well. Because like you've already said, a super talented clean athlete can't beat a talented athlete who's using drugs. Or is there a convenient loophole in there somewhere for the Lance detractors to find? I await with great interest.
  • Jez mon
    Jez mon Posts: 3,809
    Well in case you didn't note, Contador is more or less riding with the same back up team as Lance did, so read into that what you will.

    BUT some mitigating factors.

    Lance beat the best stage racers of his generation 7 times, in fact people beleived that Ullrich had MORE natural talent than Lance, Contador, beat someone who despite using CERA, couldn't ride a TT for s***.

    HOWEVER, I'm not going to say that I'm sure Contador is clean, however, I there is more chance of him being clean than Lance
    You live and learn. At any rate, you live
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    andrewgturnbull wrote:
    Hi Dennis.

    I've been avoiding all these threads like a rash... But I just have to chip in here and say that I'm really suprised by your thinking here.

    You of all people? Your down-to-earth, old school cynisms works great over on the tech threads - why don't you apply a bit of that here?

    Cheers, Andy

    Cynisism I definately have an excess of, most of it I try to temper with a bit of humor but
    a lot of times it doesn't play well in blogs and I end up sounding bitter and mean. Which I'm not. At least I hope not. Always I'm the joker giving people a hard time and a bit of razzing. It plays well in life for me. I even have a few friends. I think my wife pays them to like me but it works for me. I guess I really just don't like it when people get it in their
    head that, because they can't do something, other people who can are bad(for lack of a better word). Bike parts are bike parts. You love them or hate them. But we're talking about human beings here and it bothers me(no kidding :shock: :shock: ) that poeple
    seem to have such hatred, for no real reason. But I rant on. Cynical about a power meter? Sure why not. Make them prove to me that it's worth putting on a bike. Tell me why I have to have it. Cynical about Lance. No, he's a human being with all the warts and faults that
    we all have.

    Dennis Noward

Categories