Lance Armstrong... greatest doper there was or ever will be

I can't believe that horatio character is Canadian. He's got that typical US inability to recognize* irony (in the true, pre-Alanis sense), shoots his mouth off like a gun of which he's so childishly proud of his right to bear (not to be confused with the Geordie's 'right to bare arms'), worships the dollar, believes the end justifies the means (and he is mean, like a typical American bully), shouts his opinions so that we can hear them over his appalling clothing, and is generally a stupid colonial fuck.

*OED spelling

was chatting about this to a mate the other day who was of the opinion that 'it's all in the past, what's the point in muckraking, doesn't solve anything'

The biggest issue for me is that if we are to attempt to move away from systemic doping across professional cycling then any incentive to dope should be minimised

Do nothing and there's a huge financial and professional incentive to dope - look, I can get away with it and wind 7 TDF's and make a pot of cash and gain huge international profile

If Armstrong is convicted and his titles stripped of him then that's a massive incentive not to dope - My actions can come back and bite me on the arse and however clever I am with masking agents or micro dosing then there is the potential that tests will be developed down the line that will expose that

I really can't see how and monies raised by Armstrong for his good causes absolves him from any guilt or testing

I don't think the good deeds of Livestrong absolve Lance of anything. I would like to see everyone's cards on the table in the near future. I think it would be great for cycling, and it's going to be one hell of a story (already is, really). That isn't to say ethics aren't confusing. Is Robin Hood a villain? To many people, that may be the type of character Lance becomes if they accept the doping allegations (or if they are proven in court). Isn't it ironic.

YouTube - ‪Alanis Morissette - Ironic‬‏

(That video makes me home sick).

Yes, dear. You're #1. Now stop shouting, the Archers is about to start.

In 2009 Livestrong spent $15,377,233 on legal fees & salaries vs $11,775,916 paid out to grants & programs.

In 2009 Livestrong spent $1,922,995 on travel expenses. Of this just $187,680 was related to fundraising.

In 2009 Livestrong spent a total of $4,195,187 on advertising. Only $401,709 of this was to promote fundraising activities.

From the @velocentric analysis of the charity's accounts

Whose legal fees and travel expenses do you think those are? And guess who is part owner of the "for profit" company the charity spends most of it's ad budget with?

Not bad for a half-sack.

I really can't see how any monies raised by Armstrong for his good causes absolves him from any guilt or testing

especially when it may be viewed that those monies may have been raised fraudulently, if not legally fraudulently then definitely may be perceived as ethically fraudulent as the story of his recovery and subsequent athletic success which inspired millions to give may very well be a big lie.....those figures look worrying too, though I would assume that U.S. charities fall under some sort of inspection and scrutiny and that Livestrong has probably fallen within the law.

It would be interesting to know if Livestrong is, in fact, unique in the amount of money making it to its charitable causes. I suspect/fear it's not too far off the norm. But I would love to be proven wrong.

60 Minutes has a video bit which seems mainly aimed at reassuring people about Armstrong's charity work: 'No-one can take that away from him.' I suspect that it's something they published on legal advice.

Since this is a Federal case will Armstrong even loose his TDF titles if convicted? Surely he'll just go to jail for fraud?

Hopefully this will have a knock on effect and start to straighten out the UCI

We'll never know the truth.

Really? I imagine we already do.

If I'd paid or sponsored lance, I know what I would do if he was convicted, ask for my money back....Whether any conviction for fraud will enable the tdf or sponsors to do this remains to be seen, I'm sure some will try (if it happens)

The Times and Sunday Times are owned by News International. News International also has a controlling interest and is seeking full ownership of Sky who in turn sponsor Team Sky. They have an interest in promoting cycling.

Sad therefore that while the Giro and Tour of California are in full swing, the two pages (one News; one Sport) that the Sunday Times devotes to cycling are all about bloody Armstrong.

Sadly bloody Armstrong is going to monopolise the media's cycling space long after his second retirement. In so doing, he continues to harm the sport.

Oh it's 'unique'

The Cancer Coalition raised over $150 million.
Their combined travel and meals was $121,266.
Telemarketing was $1,399,283 and Advertising & Public Relations was a paltry $5,090

The LAF total was just over $35 million.
Travel was $1,922,995.
Advertising $4,195,187.

It would be interesting to know if Livestrong is, in fact, unique in the amount of money making it to its charitable causes. I suspect/fear it's not too far off the norm. But I would love to be proven wrong.

In the UK, the Charities Commision caps the amount of non-delivery based expenditure a charity can take on. I think. There are certainly all sorts of interesting laws around ring-fenced funds for specific appeals and the like.

Not bad for a half-sack.

Other one-nuts include Hitler, Napoleon, cricket crook Hansie Cronje and that adulterous bastard Arnold Schwarzeneggar.

Something in that, I reckon.

Is livestrong.com an arm of Lance's charity work or a profit-making content farm using the same brand identity as the Lance Armstrong Foundation (livestrong.org), I wonder how many people knew there was difference?

http://ren-kathy.blogspot.com/2011/04/livestrongcom.html

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2132653

http://www.businessinsider.com/lance-armstrong-poised-to-make-a-killing-on-demand-medias-ipo-2011-1

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/10/ff_demandmedia/

^this

.org pays for advertising on .com
.org lends money to Mellow Jonny's bike shop to buy a Gulfstream jet, who rent it back to .org for LA "charity related" travel = $1.9m

The Times and Sunday Times are owned by News International. News International also has a controlling interest and is seeking full ownership of Sky who in turn sponsor Team Sky. They have an interest in promoting cycling.

Sad therefore that while the Giro and Tour of California are in full swing, the two pages (one News; one Sport) that the Sunday Times devotes to cycling are all about bloody Armstrong.

Sadly bloody Armstrong is going to monopolise the media's cycling space long after his second retirement. In so doing, he continues to harm the sport.

Yeah, but they can ask for their money back too if he's found guilty right?

When this has all been resolved I fear that "60 minutes" will be no where near long enough.....

When this has all been resolved I fear that "60 minutes" will be no where near long enough.....

When all this has been resolved, it will be just a jot among the footnotes of sporting history:

"People used to race bikes professionally. Then there were no sponsors and so it stopped."

I can't understand all the fuss really. His voice always seemed overly contrived and the most popular tracks such as "what a wonderful world" are syrupy beyond belief. His trumpet playing was far better IMO.

But he only reached those high notes because he was juicing.

it's a tough time for those involved in cycling as a business, no-one wants to see all the bad news stories and the sport we love dragged though the muck, jobs may well be on the line if cycling's popularity falls, however what do we want to see happen to those damaging cycling?.....

When Germany learned of National hero Jan Ullrich's doping it was a huge scandal, very big news, however cycling itself seems to be as popular as ever, only the following of the professional scene has declined.