Tyler sinks the Lance

1…1416181920

Comments

  • dougzz
    dougzz Posts: 1,833
    I genuinely don't know, but maybe someone does. Do Oxfam and say Save the Children spend more on lawyers than famine relief and helping children? It seems to me quite amazing that you spend more on legalities than the actual function of the business/charity, but maybe they all do.

    I don't think a stadium build is a proper comparison to a charity. I can imagine the legal necessities of a complex construction project has huge legal fees.
  • avoidingmyphd
    avoidingmyphd Posts: 1,154
    wembley stadium is a rubbish example: it's a major property project involving all sorts of interlocking rights, obligations and risk all of which are worth millions for those involved.

    no, other charities do not spend more on lawyers than their actual work.

    "livestrong interacts with litigious people". please.
  • Monty Dog
    Monty Dog Posts: 20,614
    There's also a clouding of where the boundary between representing the interests of a certain ex-cyclist against possible criminal charges and the genuine needs of "cancer awareness" If anyone can make a compelling argument as to why a charity should be financing the defence of an individual against fraud and drug-peddling charges, then please share it with us.
    Make mine an Italian, with Campagnolo on the side..
  • Tusher
    Tusher Posts: 2,762
    I have never heard of a charity spending this proportion of their income on legal fees, and I certainly would not be donating to one that did.

    http://www.oxfam.org.uk

    Their figures are at the foot of the page- 11% on running costs and support and 8% on generating future income.

    I think the 11% may include their vast shop network. I do remember them once saying that they had to spend 8-10% on advertising to maintain their income. They had tried to reduce it, but their income fell markedly as a result.
  • dougzz
    dougzz Posts: 1,833
    Tusher wrote:
    I have never heard of a charity spending this proportion of their income on legal fees, and I certainly would not be donating to one that did.

    http://www.oxfam.org.uk

    Their figures are at the foot of the page- 11% on running costs and support and 8% on generating future income.

    I think the 11% may include their vast shop network. I do remember them once saying that they had to spend 8-10% on advertising to maintain their income. They had tried to reduce it, but their income fell markedly as a result.

    Mmm, nasty cynic that I am, it's not clear to me whether the 81p/£1 includes say property and salary costs for the emergency, development and campaigning work.
  • Tusher
    Tusher Posts: 2,762
    From my time volunteering with them, Oxfam are totally open to any questions about their spending, and constantly try to reduce the money which isn't going to the people intended. I woudl imagine Save the Children are the same.

    I think I recall that that 81p is likely to be the amount of actual aid.

    Before hubby became a minister, he was a civil engineer, and did some aid work abroad- the civil engineering company continued to pay his salary, his flights and so on, so the costs for these charities, especially those involved in emergency relief, can be directed more fully towards the people needing the help.
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,253
    Tusher wrote:
    I have never heard of a charity spending this proportion of their income on legal fees, and I certainly would not be donating to one that did.

    http://www.oxfam.org.uk

    Their figures are at the foot of the page- 11% on running costs and support and 8% on generating future income.

    I think the 11% may include their vast shop network. I do remember them once saying that they had to spend 8-10% on advertising to maintain their income. They had tried to reduce it, but their income fell markedly as a result.

    It's not particularly fair to compare a US charity with a British one. You know what those Americans are like with their lawyers.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • Tusher
    Tusher Posts: 2,762
    I can understand a charity needing a lawyer for, say, conveyancing property, drawing up contracts, but I'm truly struggling to work out what else they find for a lawyer to do.
  • inkyfingers
    inkyfingers Posts: 4,400
    Tusher wrote:
    I can understand a charity needing a lawyer for, say, conveyancing property, drawing up contracts, but I'm truly struggling to work out what else they find for a lawyer to do.

    Oh believe me they find uses for them. We supply charities with retail products and often have to sign contracts even for relatively small amounts of business.
    "I have a lovely photo of a Camargue horse but will not post it now" (Frenchfighter - July 2013)
  • Tusher
    Tusher Posts: 2,762
    Despair.


    Douglas Adams was wrong- it'll not be telephone sanitising engineers that end the planet, it'll be lawyers.
    Actually, Adams probably wrote about it being lawyers, but publishing lawyers forced him to change it.
  • attica
    attica Posts: 2,362
    I always wonder if DNA was right, some virulent plague will break out caused by iPhone transmitted ear infections and kill us all - you have been warned.
    "Impressive break"

    "Thanks...

    ...I can taste blood"
  • cajun_cyclist
    cajun_cyclist Posts: 493
    First thing, I note our neighbour is from Scotland and he's a minister. I've always just said Hi to him, I have never really met him and found out even what his congregation is but he does have a family, 2 sons.

    Back to charity:

    Litigation is one thing, I would hope for the most part, charities in the USA would be following more stringent requirements like Feed The Children.

    I'd hope litigation would be aimed more at corporation, personal torts, all of that. If Livestrong spends more money on litigation, it may be an exception. At the same time, I think people questioned Tyler Hamilton's charity which had to do with MS I believe. I would read things but one doesn't know if those things are true or not but it was probably enough to convince me that if I was giving to a charity fighting MS, I'm sure I could find another outlet without the doubts.

    Also, if the National or Federal Government gives grants to Non Profit organisations, I hope those funds are closely watched.

    http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/microsites/charityfraud/ Link on charity fraud, relatively rare I would think.
  • r.gilling121
    r.gilling121 Posts: 20
    i am new to this but i thought that lance was being chased by the feds and for him to have committed a crime he had to use federal money so US Postal money? i thought that he was accused of selling bikes to fund the doping so while that is wrong is it still a federal crime? i could be way wrong on this though
  • jonginge
    jonginge Posts: 5,945
    r.gilling121 wrote:
    i am new to this but i thought that lance was being chased by the feds and for him to have committed a crime he had to use federal money so US Postal money? i thought that he was accused of selling bikes to fund the doping so while that is wrong is it still a federal crime? i could be way wrong on this though
    It's a funny old lawsuit:
    http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/05/ ... uit_175838
    FCN 2-4 "Shut up legs", Jens Voigt
    Planet-x Scott
    Rides
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    Poor old George

    http://www.usatoday.com/sports/cycling/ ... 3933_x.htm?
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • dougzz
    dougzz Posts: 1,833
    iainf72 wrote:
    Poor old George

    http://www.usatoday.com/sports/cycling/ ... 3933_x.htm?

    I wasn't sure if there was a hint of irony in your remark. The situation is remarkably similar to Andy Petite having to testify effectively against Roger Clemons.
  • MrTapir
    MrTapir Posts: 1,206
    dougzz wrote:
    iainf72 wrote:
    Poor old George

    http://www.usatoday.com/sports/cycling/ ... 3933_x.htm?

    I wasn't sure if there was a hint of irony in your remark. The situation is remarkably similar to Andy Petite having to testify effectively against Roger Clemons.

    I'm in two minds whether to feel any thing for Hincapie. He is a 'nice guy' and everyone likes him in the peloton and he's never said anything bad about anyone (to my mind anyway), but on the other hand its coming out that he engaged in systematic doping for years with Armstrong, probably never defended people like Bassons who heroically spoke out against the cheating, and went along with it all. So I guess he's just reaping what he's sewn. They all need to come to terms with the fact they cheated and will get what they deserve in the end I suppose.
  • deejay
    deejay Posts: 3,138
    iainf72 wrote:
    Poor old George

    http://www.usatoday.com/sports/cycling/ ... 3933_x.htm?
    So there are Bad things to be forgot because so much concentration is needed on the Good.

    I like to think I "learn" by my Bad things in my life and don't forget them.

    Give um hell George in the Champs. good luck
    Organiser, National Championship 50 mile Time Trial 1972
  • Gazzetta67
    Gazzetta67 Posts: 1,890
    MrTapir wrote:
    dougzz wrote:
    iainf72 wrote:
    Poor old George

    http://www.usatoday.com/sports/cycling/ ... 3933_x.htm?

    I wasn't sure if there was a hint of irony in your remark. The situation is remarkably similar to Andy Petite having to testify effectively against Roger Clemons.

    I'm in two minds whether to feel any thing for Hincapie. He is a 'nice guy' and everyone likes him in the peloton and he's never said anything bad about anyone (to my mind anyway), but on the other hand its coming out that he engaged in systematic doping for years with Armstrong, probably never defended people like Bassons who heroically spoke out against the cheating, and went along with it all. So I guess he's just reaping what he's sewn. They all need to come to terms with the fact they cheated and will get what they deserve in the end I suppose.

    You have to feel for Bassons he must look at the money and endorsements these riders got through the years and they are probably set up for "Life Now" no pun intended and he's struggling to make a living now just like the majority of us mere mortals.
  • Gazzetta67
    Gazzetta67 Posts: 1,890
    MrTapir wrote:
    dougzz wrote:
    iainf72 wrote:
    Poor old George

    http://www.usatoday.com/sports/cycling/ ... 3933_x.htm?

    I wasn't sure if there was a hint of irony in your remark. The situation is remarkably similar to Andy Petite having to testify effectively against Roger Clemons.

    I'm in two minds whether to feel any thing for Hincapie. He is a 'nice guy' and everyone likes him in the peloton and he's never said anything bad about anyone (to my mind anyway), but on the other hand its coming out that he engaged in systematic doping for years with Armstrong, probably never defended people like Bassons who heroically spoke out against the cheating, and went along with it all. So I guess he's just reaping what he's sewn. They all need to come to terms with the fact they cheated and will get what they deserve in the end I suppose.

    You have to feel for Bassons he must look at the money and endorsements these riders got through the years and they are probably set up for "Life Now" no pun intended and he's struggling to make a living now just like the majority of us mere mortals.
  • Le Commentateur
    Le Commentateur Posts: 4,099
    Monty Dog wrote:
    Bernie, I'd read somewhere that Livestong's legal bill is bigger than their 'cancer awareness' contribution so guess they'll just have to get busy selling wristbands!
    Sounds like a house of cards waiting to collapse.
    Un uomo solo al commando
  • MrTapir
    MrTapir Posts: 1,206
    Gazzetta67 wrote:
    MrTapir wrote:
    dougzz wrote:
    iainf72 wrote:
    Poor old George

    http://www.usatoday.com/sports/cycling/ ... 3933_x.htm?

    I wasn't sure if there was a hint of irony in your remark. The situation is remarkably similar to Andy Petite having to testify effectively against Roger Clemons.

    I'm in two minds whether to feel any thing for Hincapie. He is a 'nice guy' and everyone likes him in the peloton and he's never said anything bad about anyone (to my mind anyway), but on the other hand its coming out that he engaged in systematic doping for years with Armstrong, probably never defended people like Bassons who heroically spoke out against the cheating, and went along with it all. So I guess he's just reaping what he's sewn. They all need to come to terms with the fact they cheated and will get what they deserve in the end I suppose.

    You have to feel for Bassons he must look at the money and endorsements these riders got through the years and they are probably set up for "Life Now" no pun intended and he's struggling to make a living now just like the majority of us mere mortals.

    Yeah what a bunch of f&%@ers the rest of them seem eh (then at least), Armstrong especially.
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    Oh dear

    http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20 ... 0-Minutes-

    He's getting next level stupid now.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • Gazzetta67
    Gazzetta67 Posts: 1,890
    Will be interesting to see if ASO allow "Livestrong" to (pedal) their goods on the road side of this year`s tour. Call me cynical but what price do you think a major story will break the night before the tour regarding Jeff Novitzky and his findings. :D
  • Yorkman
    Yorkman Posts: 290
    iainf72 wrote:
    Oh dear

    http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20 ... 0-Minutes-

    He's getting next level stupid now.

    Although it wasn't in Lausanne, he did meet with Armstrong and Bruyneel. Odd.

    How many other riders and DS ever meet the head of a national testing laboratory, I cant imagine its common practice.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    I'm a little disapointed in Armstrong.

    You'd think he's smart enough (or at least well advised enough) to stop with the pure belligerence.

    I've said it before, it really seems that he's got one answer to everything negative - belligerence, combativeness, and agression.

    Surely he needs come up with another response.
    _
  • frenchfighter
    frenchfighter Posts: 30,642
    http://cyclocosm.com/2011/05/why-the-haters-hate/
    Contador is the Greatest
  • rdt
    rdt Posts: 869
    iainf72 wrote:
    Oh dear

    http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20 ... 0-Minutes-

    He's getting next level stupid now.

    Yes, it's "Ryan Giggs"-like in its idiocy. His PR strategy of total/fast-rebuttal is beginning to look increasingly ridiculous.

    But all those billable hours should be making his various advisers even richer, which I'm sure they'll appreciate.
  • afx237vi
    afx237vi Posts: 12,630
    If the CBS stuff contains "demonstrable falsehoods" you'd think the lawyers would, y'know, demonstrate the falsities. Or is that too obvious?
  • Snorebens
    Snorebens Posts: 759
    An oldie but a goodie:
    "It's a pretty standard bullying reaction from people in the system when there happens to be a finger pointed in their direction," Pound told The Sun-Herald from Canada.

    "The reaction is always that the whistleblower is either nuts or wrong or has a grudge. Usually the louder that kind of noise is, the more likely it is that the whistleblower is 100 per cent right.

    Dick Pound from 07: http://www.smh.com.au/news/sport/elkas- ... 98213.html

Categories