Lance Haters

robmanic1

andyp, I have no idea what you mean, that's some accusation!

Pokerface

GyatsoLa wrote:

So, call me a hater if you will. I don't hate him at all, I quite admire him. I just don't what he does and I'm deeply cynical about the whole cancer saint thing. Real charity is done quietly.

OK - you're a hater! 8)

While I agree that 'real charity' is done quietly, effective charity is done on a large scale and needs a name behind it.

It's hard to set up an international foundation without someone to back it and someone to help keep interest in it high.

He could have just quietly donated money and walked away I guess - but by putting his name on it and keeping involved - it has ensured that it will last.

If that strokes his ego in the process, so be it. Totally worth it.[/b]

MrChuck

Stuey01 wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

The charity that hastens to proclaim its good deeds, ceases to be charity, and is only pride and ostentation.

- William Hutton.

What a complete load of pish.

Charities proclaim their good deeds to encourage people to donate to them so they can continue to do said good deeds.

Of course their are bad apples, but to tar all like that is ridiculous.

+1
That quote makes for a nice little homily and the sentiment is admirable, but it's very simplistic. If you think it's true then presumably you have no time for such apparently self-serving organisations as Macmillan, the BHF, Oxfam etc. etc.?

Pokerface

frenchfighter wrote:

Ever heard of Warren Buffett? Know about the tens of billions he has donated?

That is a bit of a red herring.

He hasn't donated it in one lump sum. And he HAS billions to donate. Certainly a worthwhile example - but not the norm. And yet another example of how far some people here will go to discredit the good deeds of LA. I suppose it would be better if he never did anything to help other cancer survivors. Ever.


Interesting that the top 50 charitable foundations in the world are all named after individuals or companies.


I guess the "Cancer Foundation" was a big seller.

frenchfighter

Are you aware of how much the directors and top management of certain 'popular' charities take home as salary? Scary in some instances.

Do you know how much of a salary Buffett takes home? $100,000.

MrChuck

frenchfighter wrote:

Ever heard of Warren Buffett? Know about the tens of billions he has donated?

So? What is it that you think that says about LA?

Pokerface

frenchfighter wrote:

Are you aware of how much the directors and top management of certain 'popular' charities take home as salary? Scary in some instances.

Do you know how much of a salary Buffett takes home? $100,000.

ANd how much do his children take home for the various trusts they manage?

And why would a multi-BILLIONAIRE like Buffet need to take home ANY salary if he's giving away all his money? Don't get it....

MrChuck

frenchfighter wrote:

Are you aware of how much the directors and top management of certain 'popular' charities take home as salary? Scary in some instances.

Do you know how much of a salary Buffett takes home? $100,000.

So your argument appears to be that, for everything somebody does, if somebody else has done it bigger/faster/for less money/for more money/whatever then it's worthless and should be given no credit at all?

pauln99

frenchfighter

As you're so fond of quotes, how about this one?

"Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt"

frenchfighter

As I grow older, I pay less attention to what men say. I just watch what they do.

Mr. Morgan buys his partners; I grow my own.

No man will make a great leader who wants to do it all himself or get all the credit for doing it.

Carnegie quotes.

frenchfighter

I've got to leave you guys to vent your frustration now as I am going to compete in a time trial. I will not post anymore on this thread and don't know why I bothered in the first place as I don't hate Lance I dislike him.

pauln99

frenchfighter

You've said a lot of pretty stupid things on this thread.

More intelligent and reasonable people have invested some of their time trying to educate you. They are probably wondering why they bothered I would think.

BikingBernie

Pokerface wrote:

BikingBernie wrote:

I have read on here that he has given just 7 million dollars of his vast personal wealth the the LAF

Yes - a mere $7 million of his OWN money. Pocket change to you or me.

You seem to miss my point. Making a charitable donation hardly involves much in the way of personal sacrifice when the alternative is simply to give the same amount of cash to the taxman.

dennisn

frenchfighter wrote:

As I grow older, I pay less attention to what men say. I just watch what they do.

Mr. Morgan buys his partners; I grow my own.

No man will make a great leader who wants to do it all himself or get all the credit for doing it.

Carnegie quotes.

I really do like your EM quote "Don't buy upgrades,....."

BikingBernie

Stuey01 wrote:

A guy wrote in to Cycling Plus this month to tell the tale of a cancer sufferer in the UK whose doctor arranged for him to have a cancer survivor phone him to give some emotional support/advice etc. The phone rings and it is Lance himself, talks to the guy and continues to phone the guy every month for the duration of his illness.

I can't help wondering whether that story is first hand, second hand, third hand or simply apocryphal. If it is true how can you know that he makes a habit of it? Even if it is true LA is not the only one who 'cares'. For example, many politicians also are caring people. I know because I have seen pictures of them kissing babies!

Stuey01

BikingBernie wrote:

I have read on here that he has given just 7 million dollars of his vast personal wealth the the LAF, and probably did that as part of a tax management strategy. How much credit should he be given for such effectively cost-free giving compared to the ordinary people who give money to the LAF?

Biking Bernie, what was your point?

Firstly: You've read it on here, well that must be accurate then...

Secondly: you say it was "probably" a tax dodge, you've just plucked that out of the air, made it up to suit yourself.

Coriander

But surely all of this is irrelevant. Most people who dislike LA dislike him because they believe his a bully and/or a drug cheat.

It is perfectly possible to be both those and to be a man who does a lot of work for his cancer charity and to genuinely be very concerned about, and thoughtful towards, cancer sufferers.

The two behaviour types are not mutually exclusive. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that his work with cancer sufferers just throws his 'questionable' behaviour in the cycling world even further into relief and highlights it.

Stuey01

BikingBernie wrote:

Stuey01 wrote:

A guy wrote in to Cycling Plus this month to tell the tale of a cancer sufferer in the UK whose doctor arranged for him to have a cancer survivor phone him to give some emotional support/advice etc. The phone rings and it is Lance himself, talks to the guy and continues to phone the guy every month for the duration of his illness.

I can't help wondering whether that story is first hand, second hand, third hand or simply apocryphal. If it is true how can you know that he makes a habit of it? Even if it is true LA is not the only one who 'cares'. For example, many politicians also are caring people. I know because I have seen pictures of them kissing babies!

I can't know that it is a habit. But given that it is a random person from the UK I think it is a reasonable assumption that Lance has not singled out this individual exclusively for this treatment.

At what point did anyone ever suggest that he is only one who cares? Is he less worthy of admiration because other people also care?
Surely all those who go out of their way to help others should be admired, not ignored simply because they aren't the only ones doing it.

What exactly is your point?

gabriel959

pauln99 wrote:

frenchfighter

As you're so fond of quotes, how about this one?

"Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt"

To be honest that one could apply to more than one of us! Probably you and me included!!! hehehe.

BikingBernie

Stuey01 wrote:

BikingBernie wrote:

I have read on here that he has given just 7 million dollars of his vast personal wealth the the LAF

You've read it on here, well that must be accurate then...

Of course you are right, it might be less than that.

Stuey01 wrote:

Secondly: you say it was "probably" a tax dodge, you've just plucked that out of the air, made it up to suit yourself.

Not quite, the original post referred to information taken from the following site

http://www.sportsphilanthropyproject.co ... php?id=426

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.

gabriel959

UncleFred wrote:

gabriel959 wrote:

What kind of support? Get well soon? Got you in my prayers?

The Foundation has given Fatty advice, information, arranged carers, directed them to doctors who may be able to help when others have said there was no hope.

He and his family have certainly benefitted from the work of the foundation.

I've been reading the blog for a long time, from way before Susan got sick, it's not always been about her illness.

As I said before, I'm not a Lance fanboy. I don't think that it's him just running the whole thing, I know there are an army of Volunteers. I support the foundation for the good that it does for people like Elden and his family. If you've read the blog for long enough you'll know that they have really helped out Fatty and he is extremely grateful that they are there.

I realise that there are reasons that some of you don't like him, I'm not trying to change your minds, hell I share some of those opinions, however I think the foundation does a sterling job.

Some good points there, so fair enough. :oops:

BikingBernie

Stuey01 wrote:

At what point did anyone ever suggest that he is only one who cares? Is he less worthy of admiration because other people also care? Surely all those who go out of their way to help others should be admired, not ignored simply because they aren't the only ones doing it. What exactly is your point?

Point is that LA seems to get a HUGE amount of credit for his contribution to 'cancer awareness'. However, in terms of the actual personal cost to him (both financially in relation to his income and in terms of time) many, many others who get zero recognition and credit do far more than he does, including I would suggest many of the volunteers who work for the LAF.

I am NOT saying that LA shouldn't get any credit for his contribution to 'cancer awareness'. My point is he doesn't deserve the disproportionate amount of credit that many give him. The way his contribution is so over-sold makes the whole LAF thing look like a PR exercise. Even if LA is totally genuine and comitted to the cause, it inescapably is also very good PR, which is something both LA and the companies who use his name, such as Nike, take full advantage of.

RichN95.

Enough of the squabbling - read this:

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/lance_armstrong_inspires_thousands?utm_source=a-section

Stuey01

Do you know what a write off is?

For the sake of explanation let's say I earn £100,000 and pay 40% tax.

In this example I make no donation:
Total income = £100,000
Taxable income = £100,000

40% tax = £40,000
My take home = £60,000
Charity gets f-all.

In this example I make a donation and don't claim it as a write off:
Total income = £100,000
Taxable income = £100,000

40% tax = £40,000
Donation = £20,000
My take home = £40,000
Charity gets £20,000.


In this example I make a charitable donation and claim it as a write off:

Total income = £100,000
Charitable donation (written off) = £20,000
Taxable income = £80,000

40% Tax = £32,000
My take home = £48,000
Charity gets £20,000

A tax write off is not the same as just giving money to a charity instead of to the taxman. A Charitable donation, even one that is written off, still takes a chunk out of your own take home income.

GyatsoLa

RichN95 wrote:

Enough of the squabbling - read this:

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/lance_armstrong_inspires_thousands?utm_source=a-section

You beat me to it, I was going to post that!

Stuey01

BikingBernie wrote:

Stuey01 wrote:

At what point did anyone ever suggest that he is only one who cares? Is he less worthy of admiration because other people also care? Surely all those who go out of their way to help others should be admired, not ignored simply because they aren't the only ones doing it. What exactly is your point?

Point is that LA seems to get a HUGE amount of credit for his contribution to 'cancer awareness'. However, in terms of the actual personal cost to him (both financially in relation to his income and in terms of time) many, many others who get zero recognition and credit do far more than he does, including I would suggest many of the volunteers who work for the LAF.

I am NOT saying that LA shouldn't get any credit for his contribution to 'cancer awareness'. My point is he doesn't deserve the disproportionate amount of credit that many give him. The way his contribution is so over-sold makes the whole LAF thing look like a PR exercise. Even if LA is totally genuine and comitted to the cause, it inescapably is also very good PR, which is something both LA and the companies who use his name, such as Nike, take full advantage of.

Publicity for him is publicity for the foundation with which he is inextricably linked. Which is good for the charity.

He deserves credit, fact is he didn't have to start his foundation and do all the supportive work he does, but he did and does anyway.
But I have to grudgingly agree on your point, and say that he could be seen to have been given too much credit, depends on your point of view.

rockmount

Coriander wrote:

Most people who dislike LA dislike him because .....

... other people tell them they should !!

BikingBernie

Stuey01 wrote:

I have to grudgingly agree on your point, and say that he could be seen to have been given too much credit, depends on your point of view.

Thanks! To explain my point of view further, when I look at LA, riding his bike in order to first and foremost serve his ego and need for glory, enforcing the doping omerta, slagging off other competitors, threatening to 'destroy' people who cross him etc. I fail to see a 'hero'.

I would argue that someone working day in and day out in a cancer ward, caring for patents fighting the disease and the distraught relatives of those who don't make it, for no recognition and earning less in 20 years that LA earns in 'appearance fees' in a week deserves the epithet of 'hero' far more.

Doubtless some would argue that LA deserves all the positive PR he gets because of the way his image is used to draw in money. However, if that is to be our yardstick then there are still greater 'heros' than LA, such as the dedicated experts who fight to secure government funding for treatment and research.

We also need to remember that everything about LA's public image is managed by a huge corporate-backed PR machine. Witness the way Bill Stapleton even talked of LA's cancer in terms of it being something that 'broadened and deepened the brand'. Take away the PR, corporate advertising and hype and what's left? A bitter man who survived cancer, takes defeat badly and apparently sees much of the world as his enemy.

pauln99

BikingBernie

Much as I like your support of the 'little guy' it's a bit tedious.

Armstrong can never be the anonymous unsung 'hero' that you seem to admire and cherish so much.

It would be much easier for him not to have the foundation I'm sure. However, he feels, as far as I can tell with decent motives, to want to give something to the 'cancer community'. It just so happens that with his profile and his clout he can achieve a good deal more than the average person, simply because of who he his and how much recognition he has.

I don't think that he ever thought that he was trying to enter a 'who's the biggest hero competition', but rather, wants to do something positive.

Neither your nor I can know his deepest motives but that is largely irrelevant. Here's a guy that has survived a pretty hideous time with cancer, gives hope to many others and invests his time and energy for no obvious personal gain.

Pokerface

BikingBernie wrote:

To explain my point of view further, when I look at LA, riding his bike in order to first and foremost serve his ego and need for glory, enforcing the doping omerta, slagging off other competitors, threatening to 'destroy' people who cross him etc. I fail to see a 'hero'.

I would argue that someone working day in and day out in a cancer ward, caring for patents fighting the disease and the distraught relatives of those who don't make it, for no recognition and earning less in 20 years that LA earns in 'appearance fees' in a week deserves the epithet of 'hero' far more.

Doubtless some would argue that LA deserves all the positive PR he gets because of the way his image is used to draw in money. However, if that is to be our yardstick then there are still greater 'heros' than LA, such as the dedicated experts who fight to secure government funding for treatment and research.

We also need to remember that everything about LA's public image is managed by a huge corporate-backed PR machine. Witness the way Bill Stapleton even talked of LA's cancer in terms of it being something that 'broadened and deepened the brand'. Take away the PR, corporate advertising and hype and what's left? A bitter man who survived cancer, takes defeat badly and apparently sees much of the world as his enemy.

I'm not sure anyone is calling Lance a 'hero'. But - let's examine your points a bit more...

BikingBernie wrote:

To explain my point of view further, when I look at LA, riding his bike in order to first and foremost serve his ego and need for glory, enforcing the doping omerta, slagging off other competitors, threatening to 'destroy' people who cross him etc.

Why do most athletes compete? Is it pride? For the glory? For the money? To serve their own ego? Probably yes to all - so what makes Lance any different? How is he enforcing this so-called Omerta (today)? Threats? What threats? I'm not saying you're wrong... well, yes I am.

BikingBernie wrote:

would argue that someone working day in and day out in a cancer ward, caring for patents fighting the disease and the distraught relatives of those who don't make it, for no recognition and earning less in 20 years that LA earns in 'appearance fees' in a week deserves the epithet of 'hero' far more.

I agree - those 'in the trenches' are the real heroes. But make no mistake - because of the work of people like Lance - keeping cancer at the forefront of the public consciousness and helping to raise money for the cause - these 'real' heroes might now be able to do their jobs as effectively. It takes all sorts from the corporate whores to the little guy to fight the disease. They are both important and play a role. Why slag off Lance because he is at one end of the food chain?

BikingBernie wrote:

Doubtless some would argue that LA deserves all the positive PR he gets because of the way his image is used to draw in money. However, if that is to be our yardstick then there are still greater 'heros' than LA, such as the dedicated experts who fight to secure government funding for treatment and research.

Again - I agree. But why does it have to be a contest!?

BikingBernie wrote:

We also need to remember that everything about LA's public image is managed by a huge corporate-backed PR machine. Witness the way Bill Stapleton even talked of LA's cancer in terms of it being something that 'broadened and deepened the brand'. Take away the PR, corporate advertising and hype and what's left? A bitter man who survived cancer, takes defeat badly and apparently sees much of the world as his enemy.

Most things in this world are 'managed', 'packaged' and 'branded'. It's how we work and understand things. Is it right? Probably not - but again - why hate a man the plays within the system and uses that system to help others?

Lastly - what kind of competitor likes losing or admitting defeat (or takes defeat well)? Striving to do better is what makes a competitor get better.