Lance is in Adelaide doing one of his rides to help....

micron

You might like to ask the 'Livestrong' cancer centre in Flinders how much they had to pay for something that was claimed to have been 'donated'.

SJ I would certainly be happier to take Armstrong's actions at face value if they weren't always part of a 'look at me what a good person I am' PR campaign - that's just my opinion of course

A note on auctioned jerseys - a lot of this has been set up & co ordinated through twitter particularly the efforts of Cycle Girl (credit where it's due)

Kléber

As for the cycle path, it's being called the "Livestrong" path but Livestrong is confusing as it's part charity, part business. Is Livestrong paying for the right to be associated with transport, like Barclays pays for the Boris bikes? Or do the Aussies cough up for the privilege of having a special path?

paggnr

We have a saying her in Australia for you lot - its called TALL POPPY SYNDROM.

Thankyou to Lance and/or whatever corporation he is associated with for taking the time to donate to our flood victims.

And yes I fully expect Lance to get milage for doing so - is that not whay we ALL do things!

Percy Vera

paggnr wrote:

We have a saying her in Australia for you lot - its called TALL POPPY SYNDROM.

Thankyou to Lance and/or whatever corporation he is associated with for taking the time to donate to our flood victims.

And yes I fully expect Lance to get milage for doing so - is that not whay we ALL do things!

If your country gave me $2m, I would happily hand back $50k -

ratsbeyfus

paggnr wrote:

We have a saying her in Australia for you lot - its called TALL POPPY SYNDROM.

Aren't poppies full of drugs?

DaveyL

Kléber wrote:

and if the rumoured Sports Illustrated magazine article appears

Does anyone know how that's coming along? I'm sure a high quality source on Twitter said it would be out "post-Christmas". I suppose Easter is post-Christmas as well though.

Maybe they're waiting for OCLAESP to "come to the party" before publishing...

Kléber

It's supposed to be this week but we'll see. I suspect it will contain the sort of stuff that many on this forum will say "yes, I knew that already" but we'll see.

moray_gub

inkyfingers wrote:

I'm with Iain, you can critiscise LA for a lot of things, but donating 50k to charity is not one of them.

I've actually enjoyed watching LA race over the years, but can't wait until he retires again. I think he probably doped, and if he did then he deserves to get busted for it, but the constant sniping and bitching from the anti-armstrong brigade is getting so tiresome. All saying how much they hate him, yet constantly posting about him every time he so much as scratches his behind.

+1

head nail the on !

moray_gub

micron wrote:

SJ I would certainly be happier to take Armstrong's actions at face value if they weren't always part of a 'look at me what a good person I am' PR campaign - that's just my opinion of course
)

I dont think anything LA ever does or says even if it was shown to be 100% genuine would ever be taken at face value by you such is your entrenched mindset when it comes to him. You will always look for a negative in anything he does i get the feeling even his beating cancer was a negative to you.

inkyfingers

I don't even think you can critiscise LA for getting paid $2m to turn up at the TDU, it's the South Australian government that's to blame. Who here would turn it down? Sounds like that $2m is going to come in handy for a good lawyer soon though!

The Livestrong part charity/part business thing is a different can of worms...if it's true that charities are paying to be associated with Livestrong then that's disgusting. Then again i've read so much rubbish from the LA haters that I never know what to believe.

micron

Moray Gub wrote:

micron wrote:

SJ I would certainly be happier to take Armstrong's actions at face value if they weren't always part of a 'look at me what a good person I am' PR campaign - that's just my opinion of course
)

I dont think anything LA ever does or says even if it was shown to be 100% genuine would ever be taken at face value by you such is your entrenched mindset when it comes to him. You will always look for a negative in anything he does i get the feeling even his beating cancer was a negative to you.

I don't think you 'beat' cancer - I think you're either lucky or unlucky, cancer being such a quirky genetic disease that we all have the propensity to develop. I've known a fair few who were unlucky and others who came out the other side but the whole LA cancer shctick is about a million miles away from their experience of the disease.

As far as Armstrong's personal probity is concerned I've read & heard far too much now to think he is anything but a liar and a cheat with an eye perpetually on the main chance. However, hand on heart, if the Novitzky investigation clears him of any wrongdoing then I will be forced to change my opinion - will you change your mind if it confirms LA as a doper and fraud, MG?

moray_gub

micron wrote:

Moray Gub wrote:

micron wrote:

SJ I would certainly be happier to take Armstrong's actions at face value if they weren't always part of a 'look at me what a good person I am' PR campaign - that's just my opinion of course
)

I dont think anything LA ever does or says even if it was shown to be 100% genuine would ever be taken at face value by you such is your entrenched mindset when it comes to him. You will always look for a negative in anything he does i get the feeling even his beating cancer was a negative to you.

I don't think you 'beat' cancer - I think you're either lucky or unlucky, cancer being such a quirky genetic disease that we all have the propensity to develop. I've known a fair few who were unlucky and others who came out the other side but the whole LA cancer shctick is about a million miles away from their experience of the disease.

As far as Armstrong's personal probity is concerned I've read & heard far too much now to think he is anything but a liar and a cheat with an eye perpetually on the main chance. However, hand on heart, if the Novitzky investigation clears him of any wrongdoing then I will be forced to change my opinion - will you change your mind if it confirms LA as a doper and fraud, MG?

Its very common to say anyone who has survived cancer has beaten it here are several notable examples

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Champions-DVD-J ... B000296GU2
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_q ... n19036595/
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scott ... -22545470/
http://blog.sport.co.uk/Football/273/A_ ... ville.aspx

Basically you have a fair amount hatred and bitterness for him you cant accept that he beat it whether it was through luck or not at the end of the he DID beat it , as much as that pains you .

As for the Novitsky investigation goes if it finds he doped then it finds he doped big deal he is not the first and will not be the last. But i gotta feeling a fair few of you LA haters are gonna be mightily disappointed at the outcome. But anyway thats for the future far far more relevant to today is the AC dope case.

dave_1

couple of things -for $30 mill USPS got $103mill increase in domestic value...and the same facts are there re why some paid LA to come to TDU. Only those with number blindness can avoid the facts-LA makes A LOT of money for OTHER people

TommyEss

micron wrote:

I think you're either lucky or unlucky, cancer being such a quirky genetic disease that we all have the propensity to develop.

Not entirely accurate, since there are substances that are carcinogenic, which have the capacity to cause a cancer irrespective of a persons genetic makeup. But don't let medical innacuracies get in the way of a good rant.

cajun_cyclist

I believe right now, they are saying Michael Douglas, of course, Wall Street actor, son of Kirk Douglas, husband of Katharine Zeta Jones is surviving his cancer, I don't really keep up with that news, you overhear it maybe on tv, I believe he is in fact clean. Who knows?

But fighting cancer I'm sure has a lot of variables, what kind of treatment you get, you know, even praying.

That's one thing I think the "hard young man" Lance has backed down from, I have said this before and what I'm talking about is basically in his book "It's not about the bike" he does say he is an atheist, not even agnostic so it was always a strange turn of the phrase if not in fact, hypocritical when he'd come out with that statement "I'm sorry some of you don't believe in miracles". At least this is the way I see it. I'm sure google searches would find more.

micron

What I said Tommy Ess, we can all develop it (that's what propensity means) - we all carry the genetic code just some of us may be unlucky and unlock it either knowingly or unknowingly. In that context, any advocacy that opens the door and helps us see and deal with the challenges that cancer hold are worthwhile, just not quite sure how useful the almost evangelical language and approach is, especially to those who don't pull through.

Anthony Tan's new piece on the Armstrong donations is excellent, pointing out the flaws in some of the hyperbole extremely well http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/01/ ... lar_155715

dougzz

Dave_1 wrote:

couple of things -for $30 mill USPS got $103mill increase in domestic value...and the same facts are there re why some paid LA to come to TDU. Only those with number blindness can avoid the facts-LA makes A LOT of money for OTHER people

Where do these numbers come from Dave?

dave_1

dougzz wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

couple of things -for $30 mill USPS got $103mill increase in domestic value...and the same facts are there re why some paid LA to come to TDU. Only those with number blindness can avoid the facts-LA makes A LOT of money for OTHER people

Where do these numbers come from Dave?

the first is so widely reported I shouldn't need to provide that. The second, google will tell all..the name, that name gi ves/gave a lot of leverage. To deny that is about as silly as trying to believe LA was clean in the doped peloton

micron

The Anthony Tan piece referenced above has all the figures for 2009 and, perhaps more interestingly, 2010 where the growth was either very small (or in one case entirely negative) but the fee remained the same

dougzz

Dave_1 wrote:

dougzz wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

couple of things -for $30 mill USPS got $103mill increase in domestic value...and the same facts are there re why some paid LA to come to TDU. Only those with number blindness can avoid the facts-LA makes A LOT of money for OTHER people

Where do these numbers come from Dave?

the first is so widely reported I shouldn't need to provide that. The second, google will tell all..the name, that name gi ves/gave a lot of leverage. To deny that is about as silly as trying to believe LA was clean in the doped peloton

OK, I'm not picking a fight, just asking. I found this story http://topnews360.tmcnet.com/topics/ass ... 03-mil.htm but that's hardly a viable source. A pair of marketing firms found that sponsorship provided value, what a shocker. The USPS have got to defend their position in this too, they're not looking to commission reports that say it wasn't worthwhile, management CYA exercise, hardly proof.

cajun_cyclist

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/ipad/engl ... 5990571507

Sort of on the same lines but looks at it from the view as to if the Australian government is prudent bringing the likes of Armstrong or Woods down there.

LJAR

To me the fundamental point is not how much you give, but how relevant that gift is in terms of your income. (I think there was a parable about that)

For LA $50,000 is peanuts.

Any donation is welcome, but the thing that sticks in the craw is that he has to do it so publicly, particularly when it is a relatively small amount.

It is like me jumping up and down shouting look at me because I gave £75 to the floods which would be ridiculous (in relative terms that is the same amount of money).

No surprise I am not exactly a fan of his, but the main thing is that he is just so annoying and disingenuous. Lots of people survive cancer, my Da did, then again my Granda didn't.

allaction

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zq5GyR9sX-E

This was sang at last nights fundraiser apparently!

Rodrego Hernandez

Just as I predicted - no donation received yet from Armstrong but at least people are now aware of the flooding ;-)
http://www.thepremier.qld.gov.au/initia ... tions.aspx

paggnr

I'm not a gushing fan and yes $50,000 is peanuts but its the action not the amount.

And yes lots of people battle and survive cancer - I have two in my family.

I hardly think he is being disingenuous, most of the people and corporates who donate large amounts to anything ensure that they are known for it.

Also he did spend 3 hours at the local hospital in Adelaide talking to cancer patients and thier families - but hey I'm sure people can find something wrong with that.

Percy Vera

paggnr wrote:

......
Also he did spend 3 hours at the local hospital in Adelaide talking to cancer patients and thier families - but hey I'm sure people can find something wrong with that.

Only 3hrs!!! - the man has a life of leisure, I'm sure he could've found some more time.

Rodrego Hernandez

paggnr wrote:

I'm not a gushing fan and yes $50,000 is peanuts but its the action not the amount.

And yes lots of people battle and survive cancer - I have two in my family.

I hardly think he is being disingenuous, most of the people and corporates who donate large amounts to anything ensure that they are known for it.

Also he did spend 3 hours at the local hospital in Adelaide talking to cancer patients and thier families - but hey I'm sure people can find something wrong with that.

$50,000 is a lot more than zero which is what he has currently donated, despite promising otherwise. I used to believe in miracles Lance but you've let us all down.

rick_chasey

LJAR wrote:

To me the fundamental point is not how much you give, but how relevant that gift is in terms of your income. (I think there was a parable about that)

For LA $50,000 is peanuts.

Disagree.

Figures don't exist in a vaccuum.

Monkeypump

micron wrote:

What I said Tommy Ess, we can all develop it (that's what propensity means) - we all carry the genetic code just some of us may be unlucky and unlock it either knowingly or unknowingly. In that context, any advocacy that opens the door and helps us see and deal with the challenges that cancer hold are worthwhile, just not quite sure how useful the almost evangelical language and approach is, especially to those who don't pull through.

Umm.... propensity actually means a preference, inclination or tendency toward...

dilemna

I've often thought that during my youth at my fittest, when riding a few bike races, even if I had doped or drugged myself up to my eyeballs, I would not have been able to keep up with pro riders even if they were all clean. So the performances of Armstrong, Contador, Ulhrich and Pantani seem to me to be those of very talented bike riders. The fact that they did or didn't dope doesn't really bother me. Where it is a problem is where you have riders who are "clean", if ever we can be so sure, losing out to riders who are not. Either you have a draconian testing regime that will detect everything or you allow competitors free reign to take what ever they wish.