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

Lance, not Oprah

Both.

I used my profile to fund research into finding a cure for the greatest killer of our time. If I wasn’t winning, that wouldn’t have happened. You do the math.’

Why didn’t he just say that?

Oh, I know this one! Is it because the maths show that he barely put a single red cent into cancer research?

Bingo!

http://brimages.bikeboardmedia.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/maplewood-bicycle-lance.jpg

Perhaps, I am misinterpreting what is trying to be said here but it seems to be a rhetoric that I encounter a lot when the topic of Lance Armstrong comes up. I hate the notion that a cancer charity has to pile money into research to be a legitimate/useful charity. It seems to me to be an all-too-easy method of denigrating Lance. Don't get me wrong- I think he is a terrible man that has adversely affected many lives in many ways. But don't let his formidable cowardice taint the whole Livestrong charity and cheat you out of seeing the many benefits that Livestrong brings to those affected by cancer. I think it is an insult to those who have dedicated their lives to running the charity to let Lance have this effect.

Livestrong doesn't do research funding - it does support for people with cancer.

Think Macmillan Nurses, rather than Cancer Research.

No doubt it does good work (ignoring easy targets about jets and commercial tie-ins), but it is inextricably linked to Armstrong the man and brand.

Livestrong is good, because Armstrong is good, because Livestrong is good, because...

But it appears that only a small percentage of the money actually even goes into the care side of things.

Livestrong is a disgusting 'charity.'

It's worth taking some tome to actually read into it - the difference between Livestrong.com and Livestrong.org and how/where almost all the money raised goes.

I don't doubt that an improvement of even one cancer sufferer's life is a wonderful thing, however I find it hard to disassociate Live and Arm strong... Even the names are inextricable. In my whatever good livestrong does (or maybe doesn't) do is a somewhat moot point.

Livestrong has raised it's millions by trading of Armstrong's image, but in doing so polishes his reputation. So far as Armstrong is concerned Lvestrong's raison d'etre is to make him look good - any benefit to other's is merely incidental.

The best thing for all would be if Livstrong approached another cancer charity, cap in hand saying "the armstrong affair has so tarnished us that our position is no longer tenable. From this moment, we cease to operate under the Livestrong name and brand and place all our resources under the management of [INSERT CREDIBLE CANCER CHARITY]"

Not going to happen though.

T
‘ But I used my profile to fund research into finding a cure for the greatest killer of our time. ]

not even close to being the greatest killer.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs310/en/index.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2012/dec/13/how-people-die-global-mortality-visualised

You may not find this funny.

I did.

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/i-regret-not-taking-out-lance-armstrong/Content?oid=15589536

I regret not taking out Lance Armstrong
by Cancer

Hey, I almost never regret anything, because I pretty much run this place. But this year, I have a big, fat, wet, glistening tumor of a regret. I should have taken Lance Armstrong instead of all those other people I killed this year. What a malignancy that guy turned out to be. Meanwhile, your grandmother? Nice lady, lovely-smelling. That kid down the street who expired slowly and horribly and humiliatingly of testicular lumps? Sweet little guy. Donna Summer? Etta James? Robin Gibb? Nora Ephron? Sally Ride? David Rakoff? I took all those sods and left Lance. What the fuck was I thinking? Even I'm not that much of an asshole. Lance would have been worthy of the pain I could have inflicted. I could have brought about the anti-dopiest of anti-doping effects, all the way into his very bones. I should have dogged him like he dogged those riders, treating them like his abused children, forcing them to do things and keep quiet. Mobster! Well, 2013 is another year, Lance. And I never get tired. Livestrong my cancerous ass.

Livestrong doesn't do research funding - it does support for people with cancer. Think Macmillan Nurses, rather than Cancer Research.

I read a really in-depth review of the Livestrong Foundation's contributions a few days ago but can't find it. They're rated very highly by the US charities watchdog becasue something along the lines of 70% of their budget is spend on 'program costs' rather than expenses and director renumeration but the definition of 'program' is pretty soft.

In the early days Livestrong did fund cancer research but apparently, on seeing the amount of money other funds were putting in they decided instead to stop awarding research grants and focus on support services. I believe this is bullshit because small, prospective grants on research that could lead somewhere but could lead nowhere are necessary to explore new avenues, in any research field.

Tangent aside 'program' in Livestrong terms include's 'raising awareness' which can mean producing and distributing yellow toroidal tat.

Waste of time and money IMO.

Boo!

I haven't seen this anywhere here yet, but I think it is worth sharing
http://www.change.org/petitions/international-cycling-union-aka-the-uci-remove-pat-mcquaid-and-hein-verbruggen-from-cycling-forever?utm_campaign=friend_inviter_modal&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=share_petition&utm_term=permissions_dialog_true&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=url_share&utm_campaign=url_share_after_sign

I thought Livestrong was mainly about Armstrong/Nike awareness???

I thought Livestrong was mainly about Armstrong/Nike awareness???

I'm talking about the Livestrong Foundation, you're talking about Livestrong :)

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/i-regret-not-taking-out-lance-armstrong/Content?oid=15589536

I regret not taking out Lance Armstrong
by Cancer

Erm, I think wishing death on the dude is taking it a bit fair

"I'm talking about the Livestrong Foundation, you're talking about Livestrong :) "

Didn't realise they were different entities.

not sure if repost.

I read a really in-depth review of the Livestrong Foundation's contributions a few days ago but can't find it.
Bill Gifford's piece?

Slightly unfortunately for Armstrong's attempts to get into triathlon, Anne Gripper is a big cheese in that sport now, although no idea how influential Triathlon Australia is--I mean, there's no-one actually into sports in Australia, right?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/anne-gripper-describes-armstrong-as-a-pathological-liar

There are aspects of her own assessment of the past that don't come across as too credible in light of what's recently been written about the UCI.

Bill Gifford's piece?

There's an animated .gif with a Ford in it here:

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h59/Stl515273/monster%20truck/Kansas%20City/GIF/e0862bbf.gif

I think she is extremely credible, the biological passport remains ground breaking in preventing doping and she was almost singlehandedly responsible for establishing it, facing a lot of pressure from both within the UCI and other parts of cycling to water it down or abandon it. What aspects are you referring to, Oliver?

He wants to get into Ironman races, run by the WTC, a private venture-capital company who don't care about / have any obligation towards the sport. If they felt it'd help them maximise their dorrah, they'd have him in their races in an instant. Especially as the appearance fee he'd command is plummeting.