USADA files doping charges against Lance
Comments
-
thank you, tww.
anyone know why BB was banned? Freedom of speech not allowed on here, or are there posts I've missed?0 -
RichN95 wrote: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.
yeah but isnt it all relative? Oldham athletic will have X% of their expenditure on player pay, out of a total budget of so much, Yankees budget will be vastly bigger, but so will salaries, and the overall percentages are similar. I'm guessing anyway.0 -
derbygrimpeur wrote:anyone know why BB was banned? Freedom of speech not allowed on here, or are there posts I've missed?
It may be the latter but suspect it's the former.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
ddraver wrote:Can some one else point out that other charities spend 20% on running costs vs 50-60% of 2 US charities? I don't want to be called xenophobic again for pointing out the bleeding obvious.
I love it when people who get called for saying moronic stuff run to other threads to throw insults.
Why don't you look through the website I posted a link to to find your answer...or are you too busy being a bigot and being angry at me to use your brain?0 -
TailWindHome wrote:derbygrimpeur wrote:anyone know why BB was banned? Freedom of speech not allowed on here, or are there posts I've missed?
It may be the latter but suspect it's the former.
But its ok, it looks like someone else has assumed the mantle
0 -
Welcome back Bernie, that didn't take long! We'd miss you if you went, really.tinkeywinkeywoo wrote: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:
Unfortunately for you, IP logging makes it unlikely you'll last long...0 -
bompington wrote:
Welcome back Bernie, that didn't take long! We'd miss you if you went, really.tinkeywinkeywoo wrote: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:
Apparently Lance does have money and good lawyers
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
ddraver wrote:Can some one else point out that other charities spend 20% on running costs vs 50-60% of 2 US charities? I don't want to be called xenophobic again for pointing out the bleeding obvious.
Prostate Cancer UK, has income of around £20million, and last year their ratio of spending on charitable things to running costs was about 3.9:1 so in the region of 20%.
http://prostatecanceruk.org/media/876135/annual_review_2011.pdf0 -
TailWindHome wrote:bompington wrote:
Welcome back Bernie, that didn't take long! We'd miss you if you went, really.tinkeywinkeywoo wrote: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:
Apparently Lance does have money and good lawyers 0 -
MrTapir wrote:TailWindHome wrote:derbygrimpeur wrote:anyone know why BB was banned? Freedom of speech not allowed on here, or are there posts I've missed?
It may be the latter but suspect it's the former.
But its ok, it looks like someone else has assumed the mantle
well yes, but you've obviously missed that he's been banned too :roll:0 -
MrTapir wrote:ddraver wrote:Can some one else point out that other charities spend 20% on running costs vs 50-60% of 2 US charities? I don't want to be called xenophobic again for pointing out the bleeding obvious.
Prostate Cancer UK, has income of around £20million, and last year their ratio of spending on charitable things to running costs was about 3.9:1 so in the region of 20%.
http://prostatecanceruk.org/media/876135/annual_review_2011.pdf
just to clarify, are you saying they spend 20% on running costs and therefore 80% on "good stuff"?0 -
derbygrimpeur wrote:MrTapir wrote:TailWindHome wrote:derbygrimpeur wrote:anyone know why BB was banned? Freedom of speech not allowed on here, or are there posts I've missed?
It may be the latter but suspect it's the former.
But its ok, it looks like someone else has assumed the mantle
well yes, but you've obviously missed that he's been banned too :roll:
Where do i have to go to find this information out? Is there a *nudge nudge wink wink* smiley?0 -
viewtopic.php?f=40002&t=12862862
I've had a look at the t's and c's and not sure that he's really said anything that others haven't. And he certainly tried to back it up with facts. Also haven't really seen anything of late that was any different to what he's been saying for a while. So why ban now, and not before?
Not that I'm that, bothered, just a shame that there's one less person on here capable of putting across an educated argument rather than slinging insults at people.0 -
derbygrimpeur wrote:MrTapir wrote:ddraver wrote:Can some one else point out that other charities spend 20% on running costs vs 50-60% of 2 US charities? I don't want to be called xenophobic again for pointing out the bleeding obvious.
Prostate Cancer UK, has income of around £20million, and last year their ratio of spending on charitable things to running costs was about 3.9:1 so in the region of 20%.
http://prostatecanceruk.org/media/876135/annual_review_2011.pdf
just to clarify, are you saying they spend 20% on running costs and therefore 80% on "good stuff"?
No sorry Ive slightly misrepresented it:
Here is what they say:
"Fundraising costs were up by £1.6 million against 2009/10 and the Charity’s return on investment (ratio of income to fundraising costs) rose from 3.5:1 to 3.9:1."
So I suppose that compares - favourably - with LAF's $45:$100 dollar ratio.
About half their income was from Movember which was in november so they didnt spend it last year.0 -
derbygrimpeur wrote:http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=40002&t=12862862
I've had a look at the t's and c's and not sure that he's really said anything that others haven't. And he certainly tried to back it up with facts. Also haven't really seen anything of late that was any different to what he's been saying for a while. So why ban now, and not before?
Not that I'm that, bothered, just a shame that there's one less person on here capable of putting across an educated argument rather than slinging insults at people.
We re in danger of doing the same thing he was banned for, but it was related to constatnly taking threads off topic then bitching about the moderators. He had enough warnings and no one ever said this forum was a democracy!
Resigning up as "tinkywinkywoo" just made sure he's been banned for even longer...We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
Rundfahrt wrote:ddraver wrote:Can some one else point out that other charities spend 20% on running costs vs 50-60% of 2 US charities? I don't want to be called xenophobic again for pointing out the bleeding obvious.
I love it when people who get called for saying moronic stuff run to other threads to throw insults.
Why don't you look through the website I posted a link to to find your answer...or are you too busy being a bigot and being angry at me to use your brain?
I am using my brain, I'm making a simple observation.
Right that's it now! Rick has had a taste of the banstick today and I'm not testing him any more!We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
-
More importantly, when is this charge going to happen?
I thought it was all going to kick of this week?0 -
ddraver wrote:Rundfahrt wrote:ddraver wrote:Can some one else point out that other charities spend 20% on running costs vs 50-60% of 2 US charities? I don't want to be called xenophobic again for pointing out the bleeding obvious.
I love it when people who get called for saying moronic stuff run to other threads to throw insults.
Why don't you look through the website I posted a link to to find your answer...or are you too busy being a bigot and being angry at me to use your brain?
I am using my brain, I'm making a simple observation.
Right that's it now! Rick has had a taste of the banstick today and I'm not testing him any more!
Nice job of avoidance...but I guess that is better then your usual nonsense.0 -
-
it's great to see the sport is finally getting cleaned up. Lance has a lot to be blamed for..about a century of drug taking0
-
Dave_1 wrote:it's great to see the sport is finally getting cleaned up. Lance has a lot to be blamed for..about a century of drug taking
Dave watch it mate the Fanboys will tell you to hawd yer weesht....along the lines of 500 drug tests...but they fail to mention the $200.000 for the UCI's doping test system that he helped pay for. 0 -
Gazzetta67 wrote:Dave_1 wrote:it's great to see the sport is finally getting cleaned up. Lance has a lot to be blamed for..about a century of drug taking
Dave watch it mate the Fanboys will tell you to hawd yer weesht....along the lines of 500 drug tests...but they fail to mention the $200.000 for the UCI's doping test system that he helped pay for.
I wonder if he had not had ball cancer and had just won 7 TDFs, what would be the situation now? But no argument with you Gazetta , he's as dirty as hell and should be chased out the sport like others have recently0 -
You have to laugh when folk say leave it alone it's in the past - So just let any BULLY out there use his power and ego and cash to get away with it. ..Another texan called JR Ewing did it but that was for TV 0
-
Dave_1 wrote:Gazzetta67 wrote:Dave_1 wrote:it's great to see the sport is finally getting cleaned up. Lance has a lot to be blamed for..about a century of drug taking
Dave watch it mate the Fanboys will tell you to hawd yer weesht....along the lines of 500 drug tests...but they fail to mention the $200.000 for the UCI's doping test system that he helped pay for.
I wonder if he had not had ball cancer and had just won 7 TDFs, what would be the situation now? But no argument with you Gazetta , he's as dirty as hell and should be chased out the sport like others have recently
Do youn like Riis?0 -
can we re-instate BB please?0
-
as moderator of pro race0
-
coriordan wrote:can we re-instate BB please?
I agree. Better to have people who will post lots of info on threads like this, no-one has to agree with any of it or read it if they don't want to.
I have no idea why he's gone though, i can't remember him insulting anyone(???), I prefer the colour of lots of opinions and stances myself, makes for more interesting reading and banter.0 -
mfin wrote:I have no idea why he's gone though, i can't remember him insulting anyone(???)
He had a rant about me being a xenophobe and suggesting I would call other Mediterraneans various national slurs (and using those slurs) just for suggesting that French riders are more interested in getting on TV than winning races (something Hinault has been saying for years).
Personally I found that pretty insulting. Others criticised him for it and I suggested he might want to retract it, but to no avail.
The guys an obsessive. He has no interest in actual bike racing, no sense of humour, the inability to form an opinion of his own and a rabid anti-American streak. If you like his postings, then the Cycling News forum is the place for you.
Having said all that, I thought he should be ignored, not banned. But maybe I didn't see everything.Twitter: @RichN950 -
There's a hole in your logic
You who know all the answers
You claim science ain’t magic
And expect me to buy it
Goodbye Mr B
You promised you would love us
But you knew too much
Goodbye Mr B
You had all the answers
But no human touch
If life is subtraction
Your number is up
Your love is a fraction
It's not adding up
Oh-Oh-Oh-Oh…
So busy showing me where I’m wrong
You forgot to switch your feelings on
Oh-Oh-Oh
So so superior, are you not
You love a little bit but you forgot
Goodbye Mr B
You promised you would love us
But you knew too much
Goodbye Mr B
You had all the answers
But no human touch
If life is subtraction
Your number is up
Your love is a fraction
It's not adding up
Oh-Oh-Oh-Oh…
Goodbye Mr B
The world was full of wonder till you opened my eyes
Goodbye Mr B
Wish you hadn't blown my mind and killed the surprise
Goodbye Mr B
You promised you would love us but you knew too much
Goodbye Mr B
You had all the answers
But no human touch
If life is subtraction
Your number is up
Your love is a fraction
It's not adding up
(Oh-Oh-Oh-Oh)
EDIT: I should perhaps add that, infuriating as I find BB a lot of the time, his posts do actually contribute a lot, and as a general principle the banstick is something that shouldn't get overused.
Perhaps his admission the other day that he was actually wrong about something just upset the natural order of things a little bit too much ;-)0
