Radioshack Black Jersey
As per the title, the infamous black Radioshack cancer awareness jersey.
Where can I buy one
Where can I buy one
twitter @fat_cyclist
0
Comments
-
-
-
-
Really? They will be made available?
Brilliant as it is a great looking jersey.0 -
-
I thought it looked pretty cool too. Wonder if you can get it with your name on the back like the riders did but guess that may be a bit too expensive for them to do.0
-
jimmythecuckoo wrote::roll:
Ok why the rolling eyes emoticon ?Gasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
You can already buy the Trek-Livestrong kit, it is almost the same and since it features the Livestrong branding more than Radioshack, it will no doubt spread awareness of cancer faster.0
-
dougzz wrote:Kléber wrote:You can already buy the Trek-Livestrong kit, it is almost the same and since it features the Livestrong branding more than Radioshack, it will no doubt spread awareness of cancer faster.
What/who is cancer?
It's a star sign.The British Empire never died, it just moved to the Velodrome0 -
It's a way to make money out of ill people. Apparently.0
-
Kléber wrote:It's a way to make money out of ill people. Apparently.
FFS drop the chip.
I shouldn't bite at this but I will.
If you really think the Livestrong foundation is just a money making exercise then your head is further up your arse than i think.
What ever you believe of Armsrtong the bike racer Armstrong the cancer survivor is commendable.
I see nothing wrong in trying his fight to bring awareness and the fight for research for an awful disease.
The cancer sufferers I speak and have spoken with have all found his fight an inspiration and gives hope.0 -
First rise of the day and he's tugging hard on the line
Maybe BB can prepare the landing net and chime in with the profits made by Nike and Livestrong from the sales of wristbands, leisurewear and other consumer goods?
In all seriousness, we must all know people who've lost out to cancer or better, people who have survived. I just don't like the idea of people profiteering from this. I can accept a drug company making a return on its medicines, although the industry is not exactly charitable. I just don't like the concept of branded leisurewear and fake hope. If you like it, cool, buy the kit.0 -
If I'm going to give money to a cancer charity, I'll give a cheque to the hospital in Sheffield which looks after countless sufferers, rather than to some organisation fronted by a guy who can ride a bike fast0
-
If you really think the Livestrong foundation is just a money making exercise then your head is further up your ars* than i think.
Thing is though Livestrong have no real presence in the UK, so you'd be better off givng your local NHS £60 or one of the many cancer charities like Cancer Research.Armstrong the cancer survivor is commendable
To modern medicine primarily if not 100% (in more ways than one :twisted: )[/quote]0 -
Gazzaputt wrote:
If you really think the Livestrong foundation is just a money making exercise then your head is further up your ars* than i think.
Remember, there are 2 Livestrong organisations. One a charity, one a for profit. Nothing illegal but I think it's a bit cheeky using Livestrong as a for-profit name.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
iainf72 wrote:Gazzaputt wrote:
If you really think the Livestrong foundation is just a money making exercise then your head is further up your ars* than i think.
Remember, there are 2 Livestrong organisations. One a charity, one a for profit. Nothing illegal but I think it's a bit cheeky using Livestrong as a for-profit name.
+1
Although I would amend cheeky for outright fraudulent activity diverting funds intended for cancer charities.The British Empire never died, it just moved to the Velodrome0 -
Gazzaputt wrote:Kléber wrote:It's a way to make money out of ill people. Apparently.
FFS drop the chip.
I shouldn't bite at this but I will.
If you really think the Livestrong foundation is just a money making exercise then your head is further up your ars* than i think.
What ever you believe of Armsrtong the bike racer Armstrong the cancer survivor is commendable.
I see nothing wrong in trying his fight to bring awareness and the fight for research for an awful disease.
The cancer sufferers I speak and have spoken with have all found his fight an inspiration and gives hope.
The bitterness towards LA extends to bitterness towards his Cancer charity, quite sad really that people can get so hung up about a charitable orginisation doing its bit however much you like/dislike the frontman.Gasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
fastercyclist wrote:iainf72 wrote:Gazzaputt wrote:
If you really think the Livestrong foundation is just a money making exercise then your head is further up your ars* than i think.
Remember, there are 2 Livestrong organisations. One a charity, one a for profit. Nothing illegal but I think it's a bit cheeky using Livestrong as a for-profit name.
+1
Although I would amend cheeky for outright fraudulent activity diverting funds intended for cancer charities.
So have you informed anyone in authority of these fraudulent activities then ?
maybe give these guys a call and raise your suspicions
http://www.fbi.gov/hq.htmGasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
Quick question:
Is there anyone who is not aware of cancer?
Being as it is one of the most prevalent conditions on the face of the Earth and is a blanket term for innumerate diseases with a variety of causes.
Perhaps some more effort could be put into raising awareness of diseases that aren't so glamorous. People still die of The plague (Black Death) but you don't hear so much about that. I suppose contagious diseases are not so marketable. :roll:God made the Earth. The Dutch made The Netherlands
FCN 11/12 - Ocasional beardy0 -
Moray Gub wrote:
The bitterness towards LA extends to bitterness towards his Cancer charity, quite sad really that people can get so hung up about a charitable orginisation doing its bit however much you like/dislike the frontman.
The thing is that people that think they're doing a bit for charity may well be doing a bit for the other side of the business. Once you muddle a charity with a for profit business the borders become very confused.0 -
dougzz wrote:
The thing is that people that think they're doing a bit for charity may well be doing a bit for the other side of the business. Once you muddle a charity with a for profit business the borders become very confused.
Also, this kind of thing is not uncommon in the US. So it's not like Lance is uber-evil because of it.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
Primarily, I like the look of the kit.
If by buying it some of the money goes to charity, then thats a bonus.
If by wearing it I provide some advertising for the charity, then again thats a bonus.
But really little to do with why I want the kit. Also I think it would be a nice kit to have as a momento of that final stage incident
If I just wanted to give money to Livestrong I would send them a cheque. Like others have alluded to charity begins at home so I would be more likely to send money to a local cancer charity, such as Action Cancer.
Besides how many of you are happy enough to ride in team gear advertising products or companies you have no interest in? Ok I agree riding a Livestrong kit makes more of a statement that riding around with Liquigas plastered all over you but you get my point.twitter @fat_cyclist0 -
So where's the evidence you're basing your accusations of fraudulent and illegal activities on?fastercyclist wrote:iainf72 wrote:Gazzaputt wrote:
If you really think the Livestrong foundation is just a money making exercise then your head is further up your ars* than i think.
Remember, there are 2 Livestrong organisations. One a charity, one a for profit. Nothing illegal but I think it's a bit cheeky using Livestrong as a for-profit name.
+1
Although I would amend cheeky for outright fraudulent activity diverting funds intended for cancer charities.
IANAL but it might just help if you had some, otherwise it seems to me that you're libelling two organisations.
ETA:
fraudulent [ˈfrɔːdjʊlənt]
adj
1. acting with or having the intent to deceive
2. relating to or proceeding from fraud or dishonest action
[from Latin fraudulentus deceitful]
http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtop ... t=126115350 -
Moray Gub wrote:jimmythecuckoo wrote::roll:
Ok why the rolling eyes emoticon ?
IIf you get one you will get stopped after ten minutes of the club run and be made to change back to your previous kit.0 -
Charity is a tax on the sympathetic.
Government money should be allocated directly to health research, to look after the sick, to fund the building of wells, and to care for the vulnerable and elderly, etc etc… It should not be down to well meaning individuals who donate to charity to fund this important work.
Unfortunately this is not the case, and even if it were there would still be considerable competition for the resources. As a result charity can thrive, and each organisation must pitch their case against other equally worthy causes. All this achieves is greater inefficiency, and less of the money being spent on the actual problem. Think about it, many people make their livings working for charitable organisations – not everyone is giving their time or product for free? How many free pens, and marketing brochures have you received from the larger charitable organisations?
The single goal of every charity should be to put themselves out of business, but this doesn’t happen – why do you think that is?? My (probably controversial) view is that people are benefiting along the way.
When I choose to give to charity, I try to give directly to the people who need the money (e.g. sponsoring the costs of a local hospice), or to pay directly towards a cause with a defined and achievable goal (e.g. purchasing equipment for a local youth facility), or I give my time (e.g. running various youth activities)…
I’m afraid that from a purely charitable perspective buying and wearing a branded jersey does not seem very worthwhile. If you like the jersey buy it – just don’t try to convince me you are curing cancer by wearing it.0 -
jimmythecuckoo wrote:Moray Gub wrote:jimmythecuckoo wrote::roll:
Ok why the rolling eyes emoticon ?
IIf you get one you will get stopped after ten minutes of the club run and be made to change back to your previous kit.
In that case your club sounds pretty much like the kinda cycling club to be avoided.Gasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
Its a gag mate, dont get narked !.. I was expecting the pun hence the rolling eyes.
They were made to change their jersey's on Sunday...
on never mind. You didnt get it.0 -
MG, that was a reference to the Tour de France. Lighten up 8)0
-
nic_77 wrote:Charity is a tax on the sympathetic.
I’m afraid that from a purely charitable perspective buying and wearing a branded jersey does not seem very worthwhile. If you like the jersey buy it – just don’t try to convince me you are curing cancer by wearing it.
Does that go for all cancer jerseys then as i have previously purchased one with Macmillan Cancer Charity does that meet with your scorn as well ?Gasping - but somehow still alive !0
