USADA files doping charges against Lance
Comments
-
Perhaps there is no evidence any more - it's all gone up in flames !
God is on Lance's side...
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/usa-cyc ... -wildfires0 -
sherer wrote:cycling5280 wrote:Lichtblick wrote:iainf72 wrote:There is extra sensitively around the witnesses here as Armstrong has form for witness intimidation
I thought that too, having now read many books and web links about him. Extremely wealthy, extremely litigious, throws lawyers and millions of dollars at anyone who dares to - well - disagree with him, basically. This includes former colleagues, team members, mechanics, friends...........
A more unpleasant person I have yet to read or hear about, in any sport on earth.
Lance should have the right to know who is testifying against him so that he can provide his best response or defense before it goes to the review board. If you were in Lance's position being notified of doping allegations I think you would like to know. I would.
Why ? All he really needs to know is what evidence they are going to give. Who is saying it has no relevance whatsoever
Whatever happened to the right to face your accuser? Does USADA run under different rules than U.S. courts?
In any case I think everyone who is acussed of anything has the right to know who is acussing them of what.0 -
dennisn wrote:Whatever happened to the right to face your accuser? Does USADA run under different rules than U.S. courts?
In any case I think everyone who is acussed of anything has the right to know who is acussing them of what.
1. Yes USADA runs on different rules to the courts. Good analogy here: http://150wattsofawesome.blogspot.nl/20 ... trong.html
2. He has already begun facing his accuser, which is USADA. The evidence they have to support their investigation will come out later if he requests a hearing.0 -
iainf72 wrote:and you'd be wrong.
No one has been charged. The USADA informed people they were opening an action and gave them a chance to respond. Their responses, along with the USADA case will go to the review board who will decide whether to formally charge them.
So according to the process, they get to find out after that happens what the evidence is and who the witnesses are. There is extra sensitively around the witnesses here as Armstrong has form for witness intimidation
The triathlon thing is about being investigated. In cycling, he'd still be able to compete but the WTC have different rules.
This pretty much answers all the criticism that has been leveled at the USADA. The statement has had the desired, effect before it the Believers were mostly quite, since it the amount of people posting on this and other sites in support has gone up. It was a PR move to by time, would love to know what the long game is though.Take care of the luxuries and the necessites will take care of themselves.0 -
Possibly the funniest quote so far in this thread?Lichtblick wrote:I am not making this up: it'll all be on the internet somewhere.0 -
There's way too much money involved in the Armstrong brand for the truth to get in the way.
Lance will go to his grave claiming innocence and his sponsers will agree with him all the way.'I started with nothing and still have most of it left.'0 -
Alwaystoohot wrote:There's way too much money involved in the Armstrong brand for the truth to get in the way.
Lance will go to his grave claiming innocence and his sponsers will agree with him all the way.
This is what I am concerned about0 -
For sure it's about the money, and you get the impression for Armstrong it was always about the money - since he comes across as someone that doesn't even like cycling.
Like I said many pages ago, it's all about the buns.0 -
Wasn't there talk that in 08 he lost of lot of money when a hedge fund he had a lot of cash sitting with went kerboom?Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0
-
-
The 'Armstrong brand' is surprisingly valuable, or at least it was a few years ago.Alwaystoohot wrote:There's way too much money involved in the Armstrong brand for the truth to get in the way.
http://www.brandchannel.com/features_ef ... ?pf_id=298Apple loses the battle for world dominance this year in our Global results but soundly beats Google at home. Similar to the Global contest, the two have shared top five distinction in the US & Canada results for the last four years.
Scooping third place, Starbucks continues to waft through our world. We asked readers to choose those brands that had the most impact on them in 2005; Starbucks is for many a daily ritual, made more noteworthy by the cost and experience of choosing this retailer over the corner street vendor.
Mega-retailer Target has been sinking since holding the first place position for 2001 and 2002, before falling to second position in 2003 and then third in 2004. In 2005, it queues up at fourth position. Unique among other national retailers in its focus on design, Target probably faces steep competition with the expansion of Ikea and Wal-Mart throughout the US.
American athlete and seven-time Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong brings up the tail of the top five brands. Armstrong joins craigslist and Whole Foods as new entrant notables who made the top ten for US & Canada brands. The Armstrong brand boasts an irresistible story of record-breaking success after the cyclist's death-defying recovery from cancer. A genuine specimen with no supplemental hype.0 -
The following gives some interesting insights into the 'Armstrong brand'. It is taken from an article that was printed in the Texas Monthly in July 2001. I particularly like the way it is acknowledged that the fact he is white is important to his brand value, the way Bill Stapleton saw his cancer as being little more than something that 'broadened and deepened the brand' and the way cancer sufferers saw him as a 'savior': people who it is now clear were sold a lie and cynically exploited in order to help Armstrong make money and secure his power base.
The article mistakenly propagates the myth that most of the money going into the LAF was spent on medical research grants. The accounts show that such grants actually formed a very small part of the expenditure of the LAF over the years, less than was spent on legal bills and running the private jet used by Armstrong.As a courageous, gifted, and fair-skinned champion, he's a Madison Avenue dream. It helps that, although Lance is no people person, he has a rock star's charisma and a cheerleader's smile. Last year Lance made $5 million in endorsements. This year he'll make twice that from companies like Coke, Nike, and Bristol-Myers. As he has won, says his friend, lawyer, and agent, Bill Stapleton, the Lance Armstrong brand has evolved. "In the beginning we had this brand of brash Texan, interesting European sport, a phenomenon. Then you layered in cancer survivor, which broadened and deepened the brand. But even in 1998 there was very little corporate interest in Lance. And then he won the Tour de France in 1999 and the brand was complete. You layered in family man, hero, comeback of the century, all these things. And then everybody wanted him." Nike was so enamored of Lance that the company signed him before it even had a cycling shoe, then made the famous TV ad that capitalized on all the drug rumors, showing him giving blood to suspicious doctors and riding his bike in the rain. "Everybody wants to know what I'm on," Lance's voice said. "I'm on my bike, busting my ass six hours a day. What are you on?" All the endorsements nicely supplement Lance's US Postal salary, which just got bumped from $2 million to $8 million a year, making him the highest paid cyclist ever.
And then there are the speeches. "Lance charges twice what President Clinton charges," says Stapleton. "Why is it worth $200,000? He sits on a stool, and he tells stories about himself. He tells the story of Hautacam—the reason he did so well was that in a training camp two months before that, he didn't go up Hautacam once, he went up twice, because he didn't think he had it, in the freezing cold rain. And so, what they take away from that is dedication, discipline, perseverance, commitment. That's what people take away from a Lance speech, and that's why he is, I think, the highest paid speaker in the country right now."
The day after we talked, Lance spoke gratis to a crowd of 1,250 at the Austin Convention Center. It was the yearly Ride for the Roses gala, part of an entire weekend of cancer fundraising and races sponsored by the Lance Armstrong Foundation that would raise some $2 million, most of which goes to medical research grants. The gala was a smash: Avid cyclist Robin Williams gabbed and Shawn Colvin sang. At one point emcee Harry Smith, the CBS correspondent, said, "Lance does something to those of us who know him and those of us who admire him." The room was packed with people who look on Lance as a savior, a guy who gives credibility to the idea that they are survivors and not victims, when often they feel the other way around. Three women received Carpe Diem awards for being, like Lance, living symbols of living with cancer. Perhaps the most compelling was Cara Dunne-Yates, a blind Paralympic medal winner in tandem bicycling with a mesmerizing message of hope, even as she prepared for another round of chemo. Lance followed her to say good-night and appeared genuinely moved: "Stories like this are what get me on the bike every day and get us out there." Someone in the audience whooped and another shouted, "Tear it up, Lance!"0 -
I know Bernie gets some stick, but I actually quite like his informed responses. It's much better than most of the stuff on here, even if I don't always agree0
-
derbygrimpeur wrote:I know Bernie gets some stick, but I actually quite like his informed responses. It's much better than most of the stuff on here, even if I don't always agree
As a comprehensive cross-referenced catalogue of LA related material he can't be beaten.
No so keen on the dogged pursuit of tangential issues.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
BikingBernie wrote:The accounts show that such grants actually formed a very small part of the expenditure of the LAF over the years, less than was spent on legal bills and running the private jet used by Armstrong.
Is this a fact? 100%?? ...simple things like this are very concise for people to understand if true (which Id assume is very very likely).
It would be interesting to know the Total Grant spend, the total Legal spend and the total payments to MJ Aviation since LAF was founded.
I spent a good amount of time reading the LAF aims and projects, its all very odd... although the supporting people in need as sufferers and family of sufferers is of course worthwhile in itself, even if its inefficiently done considering its run as a charity and most people who donate to charity would like to see their money spent wisely.
As I mentioned before, if all this sticks, I for one will be making a donation to the American Cancer Society, I think we should all do the same, Lance would like that.0 -
You mean aside from the cherry picking of data?Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0
-
cycling5280 wrote:Lance should have the right to know who is testifying against him so that he can provide his best response or defense before it goes to the review board. If you were in Lance's position being notified of doping allegations I think you would like to know. I would.
I don't know how the legal system works in the US but in the UK the Crown Prosecution Service is presented with the evidence amassed by the police and decide whether the case has merit. The CPS then decide whether the case goes to court or is shelved.
The accused person has no involvement at this stage. I believe this is similar to what is happening with LA/USADA. If USADA decide Armstrong et al. have a case to answer then I imagine they would be obliged to share the evidence on which their prosecution is based.
Of course, this is the internet and I reserve the right to be completely wrong in my understanding.0 -
mfin wrote:BikingBernie wrote:The accounts show that such grants actually formed a very small part of the expenditure of the LAF over the years, less than was spent on legal bills and running the private jet used by Armstrong.
Is this a fact? 100%?? ...simple things like this are very concise for people to understand if true (which Id assume is very very likely).
It would be interesting to know the Total Grant spend, the total Legal spend and the total payments to MJ Aviation since LAF was founded.
I spent a good amount of time reading the LAF aims and projects, its all very odd... although the supporting people in need as sufferers and family of sufferers is of course worthwhile in itself, even if its inefficiently done considering its run as a charity and most people who donate to charity would like to see their money spent wisely.
As I mentioned before, if all this sticks, I for one will be making a donation to the American Cancer Society, I think we should all do the same, Lance would like that.
Do some research on other charitable foundations and you might find that the way money is spent by LAF is not that odd or inefficient.0 -
Rundfahrt wrote:mfin wrote:BikingBernie wrote:The accounts show that such grants actually formed a very small part of the expenditure of the LAF over the years, less than was spent on legal bills and running the private jet used by Armstrong.
Is this a fact? 100%?? ...simple things like this are very concise for people to understand if true (which Id assume is very very likely).
It would be interesting to know the Total Grant spend, the total Legal spend and the total payments to MJ Aviation since LAF was founded.
I spent a good amount of time reading the LAF aims and projects, its all very odd... although the supporting people in need as sufferers and family of sufferers is of course worthwhile in itself, even if its inefficiently done considering its run as a charity and most people who donate to charity would like to see their money spent wisely.
As I mentioned before, if all this sticks, I for one will be making a donation to the American Cancer Society, I think we should all do the same, Lance would like that.
Do some research on other charitable foundations and you might find that the way money is spent by LAF is not that odd or inefficient.
The American Institute of Philanthropy would beg to differ:
.The Lance Armstrong Foundation (now LiveStrong), 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... (A)fter 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.It's a little like wrestling a gorilla. You don't quit when you're tired. You quit when the gorilla is tired.0 -
Here's how Oxfam spends its money 17% is spent on running costs.Rundfahrt wrote:mfin wrote:BikingBernie wrote:The accounts show that such grants actually formed a very small part of the expenditure of the LAF over the years, less than was spent on legal bills and running the private jet used by Armstrong.
Is this a fact? 100%?? ...simple things like this are very concise for people to understand if true (which Id assume is very very likely).
It would be interesting to know the Total Grant spend, the total Legal spend and the total payments to MJ Aviation since LAF was founded.
I spent a good amount of time reading the LAF aims and projects, its all very odd... although the supporting people in need as sufferers and family of sufferers is of course worthwhile in itself, even if its inefficiently done considering its run as a charity and most people who donate to charity would like to see their money spent wisely.
As I mentioned before, if all this sticks, I for one will be making a donation to the American Cancer Society, I think we should all do the same, Lance would like that.
Do some research on other charitable foundations and you might find that the way money is spent by LAF is not that odd or inefficient.
Here's how Cancer Research spends its money 80% is spent on research and 'beating cancer'.
I remember a while ago some helpful soul (BB?) posted some information on how LAF spends its money, perhaps this could be made available for comparison...0 -
As per my quote above. LAF/Livestrong spends 45% of its income on raising such income. More than twice the norm.
Private jets don't come cheap.It's a little like wrestling a gorilla. You don't quit when you're tired. You quit when the gorilla is tired.0 -
MrTapir wrote:Timoid. wrote:As per my quote above. LAF/Livestrong spends 45% of its income on raising such income. More than twice the norm.
Private jets don't come cheap.
Ah yes I see, we posted at the same time. Does that $45 in every $100 include litigation costs and such things?
Dunno. Would love to see Livestrong's legal bill.It's a little like wrestling a gorilla. You don't quit when you're tired. You quit when the gorilla is tired.0 -
Timoid. wrote:MrTapir wrote:Timoid. wrote:As per my quote above. LAF/Livestrong spends 45% of its income on raising such income. More than twice the norm.
Private jets don't come cheap.
Ah yes I see, we posted at the same time. Does that $45 in every $100 include litigation costs and such things?
Dunno. Would love to see Livestrong's legal bill.
You can't say he's not good for the economy.
He might as well argue going after him is against America's best interests economically.0 -
peterst6906 wrote:dennisn wrote:Whatever happened to the right to face your accuser? Does USADA run under different rules than U.S. courts?
In any case I think everyone who is acussed of anything has the right to know who is acussing them of what.
1. Yes USADA runs on different rules to the courts. Good analogy here: http://150wattsofawesome.blogspot.nl/20 ... trong.html
2. He has already begun facing his accuser, which is USADA. The evidence they have to support their investigation will come out later if he requests a hearing.
Interesting. I can follow how USADA is the accuser. Much like the District Attorney here in the States. Maybe I was thinking more of witnesses when talking about facing your "accuser".0 -
MrTapir wrote:
Here's how Oxfam spends its money 17% is spent on running costs.Rundfahrt wrote:mfin wrote:BikingBernie wrote:The accounts show that such grants actually formed a very small part of the expenditure of the LAF over the years, less than was spent on legal bills and running the private jet used by Armstrong.
Is this a fact? 100%?? ...simple things like this are very concise for people to understand if true (which Id assume is very very likely).
It would be interesting to know the Total Grant spend, the total Legal spend and the total payments to MJ Aviation since LAF was founded.
I spent a good amount of time reading the LAF aims and projects, its all very odd... although the supporting people in need as sufferers and family of sufferers is of course worthwhile in itself, even if its inefficiently done considering its run as a charity and most people who donate to charity would like to see their money spent wisely.
As I mentioned before, if all this sticks, I for one will be making a donation to the American Cancer Society, I think we should all do the same, Lance would like that.
Do some research on other charitable foundations and you might find that the way money is spent by LAF is not that odd or inefficient.
Here's how Cancer Research spends its money 80% is spent on research and 'beating cancer'.
I remember a while ago some helpful soul (BB?) posted some information on how LAF spends its money, perhaps this could be made available for comparison...
To be fair, you're not really comparing like with like there. Oxfam and CRUK are vastly bigger charities in a different country. It's like comparing the finances of Oldham Athletic with the New York Yankees.Twitter: @RichN950 -
http://www.charitynavigator.org
A few examples:
Overall: LAF-63.02 (out of 70), American Cancer Society(since it was mentioned earlier)- 53.85
Accountability & Transparency: LAF-67, ACS-64
Financial: LAF-60.60, ACS- 47.97
Revenue: LAF-$42,267,410, ACS- $930,432,308
Functional Expense: LAF- $31,553,407, ACS- $1,003,781,8970 -
I don't think BB will be able to repost that information, as I have heard that BB has been banned by the moderators on here. Anyhow, if BB had not become a victim of autocratic power, he might have written something like the following:MrTapir wrote:I remember a while ago some helpful soul (BB?) posted some information on how LAF spends its money, perhaps this could be made available for comparison...
As of 2007, the LAF had raised 270 million Dollars and had spent just 19.1 million of this on funding cancer research over a 10 year period. I had a look some of the published accounts of the LAF and the bill for legal services alone was over 6 million dollars a year.
The LAF hasn't given much to cancer-related organisations in general, either. For example, in 2004 it was expected to raise $21 million by the end of the year. However, in the previous year it paid out just $3.6 million in 'grants to 80 cancer-related organizations around the country'.
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.c ... w&cpid=215
Historically the LAF has a poor rating from organisations that monitor charities in the USA, seemingly being more of an exercise in PR and marketing than an organisation that actually directs funds to helping cancer patients. The LAF's take on this is that all the money it spends on marketing and promoting the LAF (and so Armstrong's public image) is legitimate as this 'raises awareness' of cancer, whatever that means.
http://www.charitywatch.org/articles/cancer.htmlLAF 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.
Criticism from organisations such as those above have led to some pretty imaginative creative accounting techniques, usually in form of listing marketing expenditure, expenditure on legal fees and so forth as being 'Program Expenses', lumped together with what they actually spend on cancer related programs.
Many of these issues are discussed in the following article:
http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-ad ... l?page=allIt's Not About the Lab Rats
If Lance Armstrong went to jail and Livestrong went away, that would be a huge setback in our war against cancer, right? Not exactly, because the famous nonprofit donates almost nothing to scientific research. BILL GIFFORD looks at where the money goes and finds a mix of fine ideas, millions of dollars aimed at “awareness,” and a few very blurry lines.
On top of all this there is the way Armstrong has used the livestrong.org image in order to set up livestrong.com, to his own financial benefit:0
