One for Lance fans
Comments
-
aurelio wrote:
It looks like I am getting to you. Good!colint wrote:glib...childish...petty...arrogant...childish...
Why's is it good ? I thought you were here to enter into debate, not "get to people"
Thanks for the reply anyway, you've finally shown yourself as the troll that I thought you might be.Planet X N2A
Trek Cobia 29er0 -
I am quite happy to debate with anyone who wants to. On the other hand I have little time for pricks who simply resort to making personal attacks. For such people a response in kind seems to be more appropriate. :roll:colint wrote:I thought you were here to enter into debate, not "get to people".0 -
aurelio wrote:
I am quite happy to debate with anyone who wants to. On the other hand I have little time for pricks who simply resort to making personal attacks. For such people a response in kind seems to be more appropriate. :roll:colint wrote:I thought you were here to enter into debate, not "get to people".
Keep it going, you can't dig half a hole as the saying goes :-)Planet X N2A
Trek Cobia 29er0 -
colint wrote:r
I've read the Dawkins book as well, it does put the case really well for the damage religion does in society, but we're getting way OT (recommend the book though)
I've no doubt the accusations bit was as much about LA having a pop as anything else, but I still think the message you could get if you're a sufferer is I'm doing this for you, despite the personal abuse etc. I honestly think I'd get something out of it in that situation (my dad died on cancer when I was a kid and I think it would have been a positive thing for me to see).
If we have people saying I'm a sufferer etc (like the earlier post) and LA has helped me in some way, how can anyone argue with it, it's fact. He's an egomaniac, a bully and maybe a few other things but he has and is giving some sort of comfort to cancer sufferers.
Making glib, irrelevany comments like Aurelios about pixes are pointless, and just come across as not being able to accept a fact because it goes against his intractable opionion of every facet of LA.
If his ego gets a kick AND he does something for cancer, I see no problem
That is an well thought out excellent post ColinGasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
aurelio wrote:
I am quite happy to debate with anyone who wants to. On the other hand I have little time for pricks who simply resort to making personal attacks. For such people a response in kind seems to be more appropriate. :roll:colint wrote:I thought you were here to enter into debate, not "get to people".
Colin has got you jumping through hoops just now...........quite amusingGasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
colint wrote:aurelio wrote:
I was actually saying that I would feel sorry for anyone who did not have sufficient support from their family and friends at such a time. :roll:colint wrote:How arrogant can you be to feel sorry for someone not because they have cancer, but because they get inspiration from someone you dislike ?
That may be what you're saying now, it's clearly not what you said earlier, despite the childish rolling eyes.
Aurelio said
"OK, so perhaps some do find Armstrong's story to be inspiring, even if they are aware of the doping and what a generally unpleasant individual he appears to be. To be honest I feel sorry for such people. "
Pretty clear what you are saying there and its not very nice at all.Gasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
You missed a bit...Moray Gub wrote:Aurelio said
"OK, so perhaps some do find Armstrong's story to be inspiring, even if they are aware of the doping and what a generally unpleasant individual he appears to be. To be honest I feel sorry for such people. "
OK, so perhaps some do find Armstrong's story to be inspiring, even if they are aware of the doping and what a generally unpleasant individual he appears to be. To be honest I feel sorry for such people. I know that if I were ever facing cancer I would look to my loved ones for support and inspiration, not the likes of Armstrong...0 -
mate, stop being such a sanctimonious prick. we can all read,
perhaps you should pause, get off your high horse and apply a little more consideration before hitting enter.
you're entitled to your views, but you're quite clearly (on this occasion and others in the past on this site) got so wrapped up in your own rage, you've fired something that oversteps the mark.0 -
I don't deny that Armstrong's 'cancer awareness' campaign has done some good for some people, but I think that its value shouldn't be overstated.
I often hear people saying that the LAF is involved in cancer research, but the contribution it has made to research is miniscule and the LAF spends far, far more on promoting the LAF (and in turn Lance Armstrong...) than it does on research. (In fact charity watchdogs in the USA have advised people not to contribute to the LAF because it spends so much of its budget on promotion). It does not pay for cancer treatments and over the last 10 years I have never of heard Armstrong calling for a universal health care system to be set up in the USA, a country where almost 50 million people have no health cover, so if they get cancer they are likely to die. Most people already know what cancer is and Armstrong does not seem to be interested in trying to communicate any in-depth information about cancer. The main thing the LAF seems to do is to advise people in the US who have cancer (and the required health insurance of course) what their treatment options are.
One thing that LAF and 'cancer survivor' thing certainly does do is to provide Armstrong with a 'shield of invincibility' deflecting criticism and encouraging people to defend him and attack his detractors. One might even argue that whatever good he might do he is also rather cynically manipulating cancer suffers for his own ends. (And one might also argue that the biggest beneficiaries in all this are corporations such as Nike who trade on the power of 'The Armstrong Brand'). I am not the only one who thinks this...
INTERVIEWS
David Walsh
DW: I can speak maybe more clearly about the stuff I was involved in. I looked at the LAF foundation, and how Lance has used cancer as a shield, in a sense, to protect him. I think he's done it very effectively...
http://velocitynation.com/content/inter ... avid-walsh0 -
and so the chip grows larger on aurelio's shoulder :roll:0
-
I don't think anyone is saying that you don't take hope where you can if you have cancer - but hope doesn't have to come from a corporate ad campaign. I wouldn't turn to Armstrong for inspiration - not because I think he's an arrogant prick but simply that his experience wouldn't have relevance to me, I'd find hope, encouragement, support from friends, family and the stories of those I know who have lived and died. That's where I would look for hope - but then I'm a realist and I know that I'm more likely to die from breast or ovarian cancer than a man is from testicular cancer.
What I mean, MG, is that, whilst you may feel posters are saying you can't find Armstrong inspirational or take hope from his story, there are other sources of hope out there and that to buy the Livestrong myth wholesale when you're relying on the NHS, aren't already extremely physically fit, don't have millions to throw at the best available care may be a dangerous or unrealistic one. This is an interesting piece on Australian research which found that positive thinking had no effecdt on cancer recovery - in fact patients with recurring cancer would blame themselves for not thinking positively enough to beat it in the first place: http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2008/s2262841.htm
I found this on the Cancer Research website - I think it's an interesting pointer to the cultural divide over what it might mean to 'Livestrong':
http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default.asp?page=226
But the bottom line is - not matter how irrational constructs like 'hope' might be we all find it from somewhere for all sorts of reasons - it's just that we all choose to find it in different places and one size doesn't fit all, as Nike-Livestrong encourages us to believe.0 -
Aurelio ...
I know very little of what LAF actually does, so I took a look at the site. I'm not convinced for a second you're dealing with facts.
1) Can you provide any evidence on reputable charity watchdogs clearly recommending people do not donate to the LAF. Please, not one of you single out of context quotes dragged up from a 5minute google search.
2) Is it really the job of the LAF to provide universal healthcare?
3) According the LAF website, it has raised $250m over the years. That's a drop in the ocean to what is required for cancer research.
I don't believe the LAF exists to solely to provide treatment or for research purposes alone . No doubt, there are other charities with those explicit goals. However, many cancer charities exist to provide support. In my view, treatment and research is primarily the responsibility of government, insurance and of the large drug companies.
4) You seem unhappy that LAF actually raises money successfully, Let me remind you, it's a charity with strict governance on where the revenue is spent. One that publishes its accounts.
If you're unhappy with how the money is spent, don't give. People have a free choice to choose the charities they contribute to and clearly many are happy to donate LAF.
If you believe this is wasteful or contributions would be more effective if made elsewhere, go and campaign for those charities. Slagging off a charity, and its figure head, because you don't like him and believed he cheated (when competing, not raising money), is not a fair and reasonable way to judge the charity.
5) I wondered if you have a problem with companies making money? Esp with others beyond your apparent distaste for the likes of Nike, LAF Oakley etc.
If a large drug company finds a treatment for a particular cancer, are you suggesting they not make a return on the investment required to bring that drug to market. Cancer and drug treatments are in market place. It's called capitalism. If you're not happy with it, move to china.
If an individual such LA or Bill Gates is successful, any charity work they do do, often becomes the target for easy and cheap criticism. They don't have to do charity work and some of it may be done, because it makes them feel good and look better. But isn't that, to one extent or another, part of the reason why many of us do charitable work?
There's nothing wrong about feeling good for doing something good.
I'll repeat - if you have a problem with the charity, stick to facts about that charity, not slanderous hearsay. Valid criticism is fine, but there's not much I've read from your contributions that seems fairminded, well researched and unbiased.
If you're really that concerned about cancer, malaria or whatever, put some of your effort into doing something about it.
If you don't like LA go and cheer for Alberto, Cadel or Greg. In the mean, shut the f*ck up and give the rest of us a break.0 -
emerywd wrote:Aurelio ...
I know very little of what LAF actually does, so I took a look at the site. I'm not convinced for a second you're dealing with facts.
1) Can you provide any evidence on reputable charity watchdogs clearly recommending people do not donate to the LAF. Please, not one of you single out of context quotes dragged up from a 5minute google search.
The cost of their fundraising was raised by a charity watchdog but I don't believe they ever suggested people don't give money because of it.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
i suspect you're right.
The high cost of charity, is also a criticism every i have everytime some one in the office goes off trekking to nepal for 'charity'. There's a high cost, which potentially impacts the return made for the charity.
Nevertheless, funds are raised that otherwise wouldn't be. Doesn't leave me feeling entirely comfortable, but that's the way we do charity it seems.
Regardless, I'm still not expecting any concrete facts from aurelio stating that people should not give to the LAF. Cheap, slanderous hearsay.0 -
-
so did anyone of you watch the TDF coverage then?
If suffer we must, let's suffer on the heights. (Victor Hugo).0 -
so in summary, based on 2005 figures - it's a middle ranking charity performer in terms of revenue raised/cost to raise.
perhaps people should be venting their spleen the american breast cancer foundation . shockingly expensive and giving a small percentage.
for the record, that's based on 2005 figures. There's a note of the LAF that they give 80$ of every dollar to charity
http://www.livestrong.org/site/c.khLXK1 ... mation.htm
and another charity analysis organisation describes the LAF as "as good it gets"
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.c ... w&cpid=215
either way - it show's that raising money is costly and the LAF is by no means the costly way to give.
It certainly doesn't recommend not giving.0 -
micron wrote:I don't think anyone is saying that you don't take hope where you can if you have cancer - but hope doesn't have to come from a corporate ad campaign. I wouldn't turn to Armstrong for inspiration - not because I think he's an arrogant prick but simply that his experience wouldn't have relevance to me, I'd find hope, encouragement, support from friends, family and the stories of those I know who have lived and died. That's where I would look for hope - but then I'm a realist and I know that I'm more likely to die from breast or ovarian cancer than a man is from testicular cancer.
What I mean, MG, is that, whilst you may feel posters are saying you can't find Armstrong inspirational or take hope from his story, there are other sources of hope out there and that to buy the Livestrong myth wholesale when you're relying on the NHS, aren't already extremely physically fit, don't have millions to throw at the best available care may be a dangerous or unrealistic one. This is an interesting piece on Australian research which found that positive thinking had no effecdt on cancer recovery - in fact patients with recurring cancer would blame themselves for not thinking positively enough to beat it in the first place: http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2008/s2262841.htm
I found this on the Cancer Research website - I think it's an interesting pointer to the cultural divide over what it might mean to 'Livestrong':
People take hope and inspiration from wherever they see fit and to feel sorry (aurelios words not yours btw) and rubbish those that choose LA says more about them than i ever could. So fine you personally dont belive in LA or his foundation but why should you try and deny anyone else that belief ? Also i dont for a minute think that Nike or LA thinks hope comes from them alone,i think you are just making that up to suit your own arguement.Gasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
aurelio wrote:
You missed a bit...Moray Gub wrote:Aurelio said
"OK, so perhaps some do find Armstrong's story to be inspiring, even if they are aware of the doping and what a generally unpleasant individual he appears to be. To be honest I feel sorry for such people. "
OK, so perhaps some do find Armstrong's story to be inspiring, even if they are aware of the doping and what a generally unpleasant individual he appears to be. To be honest I feel sorry for such people. I know that if I were ever facing cancer I would look to my loved ones for support and inspiration, not the likes of Armstrong...
Pretty clear what you are saying there and its not very nice at all.Gasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
Gasping - but somehow still alive !0
-
MG, I'm not the one who dreamed up the new campaign and called it 'Hope Rides Again'. I didn't paint statistics of the time he has been off the bike and the number of people who have died in that time on his frame. I think the implication is fairly clear, don't you? If Armstrong doesn't ride and give hope to cancer sufferers - they die. He is the only 'Hope' for survivorship. Personally I object to cancer being used to draw Bush type battle lines 'you're either with us (anti cancer) or you're against us (a cancer lover)' and I object to being told that Armstrong is the only source of hope and inspiration there is in order to shift trainers, but that's just my opinion.0
-
micron wrote:MG, I'm not the one who dreamed up the new campaign and called it 'Hope Rides Again'. I didn't paint statistics of the time he has been off the bike and the number of people who have died in that time on his frame. I think the implication is fairly clear, don't you? If Armstrong doesn't ride and give hope to cancer sufferers - they die. He is the only 'Hope' for survivorship. Personally I object to cancer being used to draw Bush type battle lines 'you're either with us (anti cancer) or you're against us (a cancer lover)' and I object to being told that Armstrong is the only source of hope and inspiration there is in order to shift trainers, but that's just my opinion.
That is nonsense he isnt saying that at all, sure he is giving statistics about how severe the disease is , but you are putting your own spin on it becuase it suits your arguement. My gripe about this is not what the LAF or LA for that matter does or doesnt do its that you and others like you think that you should decide where hope comes from and it should not be LA,or his foundation, i dont see what give you and other the moral right to make that call ? id suggest you take hope from where you want and let others do the same.Gasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
Couldn't agree more, MG - chacun a son goout and all that. However, what we're discussing here is not a charity campaign coming from Livestrong but an ad campaign from Nike who are not saying 'A source of hope and inspiration rides again' but simply 'Hope Rides Again' so they can sell trainers and other sweatshop manufactured goods.
I think you're absolutely right to separate out the issue of 'hope', and where we find it. But I think you need to look at the uses that Nike are putting 'Hope' in service of, and that's selling Nike goods. For me that exploitation - of people's hopes, of sweatshop workers, of people with cancer - is a moral issue, but perhaps not one to be debated in this particular forum.0 -
Of which just 19 million has gone to cancer research...emerywd wrote:According the LAF website, it has raised $250m over the years. That's a drop in the ocean to what is required for cancer research.
More LA spin. That figure must include all the cash they spend on promoting the LAF. (And in turn on increasing the value of 'The Armstrong brand). Just look at your second link:emerywd wrote:There's a note of the LAF that they give 80$ of every dollar to charity
http://www.livestrong.org/site/c.khLXK1 ... mation.htm
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.c ... w&cpid=215
Beyond all the PR it says:
Today, the Lance Armstrong Foundation is an internationally recognized organization with 45 employees that is expected to raise $21 million by the end of the year. Last year, it paid out $3.6 million in grants to 80 cancer-related organizations around the country.
Expected income 21 million dollars, they paid out 3.6 million dollars, which is not 80% of 21 million!
Whilst Charity Navigator seems to give out four star rating like confetti (1757 times at the last count) the LAF does not have a four star rating!
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.c ... orgid=65700 -
P.s I wonder how Charity Navigator calculates it's 'program expense' figure, as it seems much of what is included in that figure doesn't actually go to helping anyone. From that Charity Watch article:
The Lance Armstrong Foundation (LAF), founded by the champion bicyclist and cancer survivor of the same name, is celebrating its 10-year anniversary this year. Wouldn’t you think a charity that receives massive publicity for having one of the most popular causes and most admired celebrities as the face of the organization would be able to easily raise lots of money? Unfortunately this is not the case. LAF spent as much as $45 to raise each $100, exceeding AIP’s 35% recommended fundraising ceiling by a significant margin. While LAF had difficulty raising contributions efficiently, it did prove to be a savvy merchandise marketer. LAF sold over $24 million in merchandise, including the ubiquitous yellow “LIVESTRONG” wristband, as well as clothing, sports gear and even dog leashes. Yet after spending $10 million in solicitation costs, the group brought in only $22 million in contributions, according to AIP’s analysis of LAF’s 2005 financial statements.
http://www.charitywatch.org/articles/cancer.html0 -
I don't know about charity work making people like Gates 'feel good', but charitable 'Foundations' like the LAF certainly offer some very attractive tax benefits...emerywd wrote:If an individual such LA or Bill Gates is successful, any charity work they do do, often becomes the target for easy and cheap criticism. They don't have to do charity work and some of it may be done, because it makes them feel good and look better.
Foundations... serve two immediate purposes: They can provide a hefty and long-term tax deduction on windfall signing bonuses and salaries. And they can supply positive public relations, if they flourish.
...On its own Web site, the National Heritage Foundation lists several reasons why agents should encourage their clients to start foundations. For one thing, agents may continue to be paid from the foundation after the athletes' retirement. Also listed: Community prestige, lower taxable income and the Pester Factor.
"Athletes are besieged with requests for funds by almost everyone they see," the site offers. "They would be able to say, 'All these matters are handled by my foundation.'"
On the 990 tax forms, charity for the wrong reason still counts as a write-off.
http://www.sportsphilanthropyproject.co ... php?id=426
Of course Armstrong is not the only saintly cyclist to run such a PR scam, sorry, to show their concern for others via their own foundation.
The Tyler Hamilton Foundation is dedicated to promoting health and personal empowerment through cycling.
http://www.tylerhamilton.com/
The mission of the Floyd Landis Foundation is to support research for the treatment and prevention of degenerative arthritis (Osteoarthritis), artificial joint replacement and the funding of treatment for individuals, including disadvantaged youth, suffering from the condition.
http://www.floydlandisfoundation.org/0 -
Does anyone have any more up to date figures than 2005 ? Could it be that there were significant costs in setting the charity up which explains the relatively poor return ?
You'd expect them to get more efficient as the following years. I've looked on the charity watch site but it only refers to 2005 financialsPlanet X N2A
Trek Cobia 29er0 -
Set up costs? In 2005? The LAF was created in1997....colint wrote:Does anyone have any more up to date figures than 2005 ? Could it be that there were significant costs in setting the charity up which explains the relatively poor return ?0 -
Didn't realise it had been running that long. Is it really 10 years ? Makes me feel way too old !
Anyway, a quick look at the latest set of accounts shows 15.9% spent in fundraising and 5.7% spent on admin, which is much healthier. It seems to be being run on a much more efficient basis now, which is good news.
Getting back to the Nike advert, that kind of free advertising must help the figures, you'd have to pay a small fortune for that amount of exposure usuallyPlanet X N2A
Trek Cobia 29er0
