Actually quite a lot.

MOST personal insurance coverage is suspect when engaged in the activity of RACING.

If you go out and get hit while on a training ride, your level of responsibility for risk is much less than when actively engaged in a race. As a former motorcycle rider who did many track days and races, part of the understand was my medical coverage, just as my insurance coverage on my bike for the most part became at risk and void when competing.

Must insurance companies won't toss you out, but technically, since racing is an at risk activity, in most cases they are really under no obligation to pay out.

And your point? Jim and Tammy Baker's donations into the PTL exploded as well after he admitted having affairs.

All that is good indeed though.. Since Lance will funnel a great more of those monies into his increased legal expenses this year, maybe the huge influx will mean some money actually makes it to the intended and not the lawyers, planes, etc.

Yes, getting alternative coverage is not difficult. I'm sure that's already been taken care of. Maybe it's worse, maybe it's better, in all likelihood it'll be irrelevant and unneeded.

Only about $2 of the $12 USAT fee goes to insurance. The majority of annual dues and one-day fees goes to supporting the elite team, USAT infrastructure and other costs, etc.... I don't think Rev3 could get away with simply taking the $12 USAT fee and applying it to a new insurance, plus all those with annual memberships have paid Rev3 nothing and would be getting a free ride. Note, this is all irrelevant as it appears Rev3 is refunding the USAT fees and just eating the cost of getting separate coverage, officials, etc....

fwiw, there is a very valid argument to be made that it is not worth it for a race to be USAT sanctioned. The sanctioning costs, the costs of officials, and the substantial USAT cost to participants are significant, and for my race at least, resulted in a grand total of 3 penalties handed out, although I will say that my race is somewhat of an anomaly and probably requires less policing than the majority.

"I don't think Rev3 is using it as a shield from criticism. I think by this point, someone in a staff capacity would have come over and said something if it were being used as a shield."

Your main point in your previous post was that this is a race to raise money for cancer research and that neither Lance or Rev3 is making any money from it. That is what I mean by using cancer as a shield from criticism.

"I think that Joe Public already has his opinion on Lance, much like everyone here already has there. No amount of participation versus non-participation is going to change that opinion. Look at, for instance, the massive increase of donations to LiveStrong when the USADA sanctions came down."

Public opinion is always in flux and actions by respected organizations matter. I see the massive increase of donations to LiveStrong after the USADA sanctions as a sad event, which shows just how badly the war against drugs in sports is being lost. Most people who are against drugs in sports see any support for Armstrong at this point as a tragedy - Rev3 saw it as an opportunity.

Lance Armstrong is the battlefront for drugs in sports. What's the argument for an 18 year old kid to not take drugs when the most successful doper of all time is still seen as a hero by a majority of Americans?

Not sure where you are from but in the US you health insurance is not going to be null and void because you did a tri as a non-pro. If you have an insurance plan like that then that has got to be the worst insurance ever.

I love it how the people bitching about LA racing on here are so worried about their USAT points when the entire reason for this race is to raise money for cancer and having LA participate in the cancer division gives the event the opportunity to raise more money. Bravo on your selfishness.

---

__________________________________________________
Follow my blog - Follow me on Twitter - Facebook Page
Powered by Accelerate3

My last post on the topic...

LiveStrong has done more than you can ever imagine for my family when we lost my father-in-law to cancer. So I'm a bit touchy when it comes to people going immediately down into "oh, the money goes to LA's legal team" thing. Bull. I've seen first-hand what that organization can do. And yes, I've reviewed the financial documents, too.

On the other hand, the beneficiary for the race is UCF, not LS.

The point I was making was in regards to people already having their opinions hard set on the matter. Joe Public is not going to suddenly think "Gee, Rev3 thinks doping is fine in sports" because LA is going to be at their charitable event.

To Neb, as your post came up after mine:

I disagree that LA is the battleground for doping in sports. I think there needs to be more done, certainly: we need to see a hard, rigid program of testing across the entire professional field. We need to see the monies that USAT spends go to this.

I don't think we're going to change people's opinions on LA, and I don't think him participating in a benefit event changes Rev3's position on doping, either.

It's obvious we aren't going to convince each other to the other viewpoint, but I certainly respect your stance on it. I just hope you can see where my argument comes from, too.

Regardless, I think we all can agree that there's work to be done, both for the sport and for the benefit of UCF.

---

----------------------------------
Editor-in-Chief, Slowtwitch.com | Twitter

some thoughts so far.


eh, i don't know about that. Uli advertises the heck out of his race and its $100K prize purse. that said, he better be doing something to protect the integrity of that money. plus, he does not advertise his drug testing. based on his posting here, he has some kind of program to test the winners. therefore it is easy to separate these two story lines. Lance is not eligible to win anything out of this.


i wish we'd talk more about this. isn't anyone going to express the clear disappointment in the USAT? where is the USAT value proposition? this RD chucked them overboard with no percievable repercussions. if all the USAT is providing is insurance, that's pretty lame. if the USAT was worth a hoot there would be an RD saying, "sure, i'd love to have the publicity of Lance, but the USAT is indespensible to me. i can't go with out them."

to me, it doesn't seem that we are any where near there. i can't imagine anyone having a golf tournament that wasn't USGA sanctioned.

"Should we let people convicted of multiple DUI's and who have their DL's taken away, keep on driving, so as not to judge them also? " (Murphy'sLaw)

You can't compare people convicted of DUI's to this situation. No comparison. People who lose their license, lose their license. Again, we can agree to disagree.

sanctioned/banned=no license.

not sure why this is so hard for you to grasp.

I'm sure my wife is not the only one disappointed in the lack of USAT sanctioning. Selfish? Sure. Gaining a ranking is something she wanted to do. Will this destroy her? No. I suspect she'll get over it. You have no idea what we do for charitable causes (and it's going to remain that way).

It has nothing to do with racing pro or not. It has to do with AT RISK activities.

Technically if you look at the waivers you sign at most races, you sign away any responsibility to the USAT and Race Org.

It is always better to have multiple levels of insurance. I do remember in the past going to fund raisers like BBQs and the like for injured riders because their insurance refused to cover their broken bones because their injury occured during a race which is an AT RISK activity with an assumed increased level of injury.

Rev3 is allowing him to race. Go Lance!

I simply don't think that charitable organizations are immune from any criticism merely because they do good things in the world. There are plenty of cancer research institutions and charities all over the world that do incredible work without associating themselves with someone like Armstrong. It isn't an either/or proposition. If UCF can't survive without involving Armstrong - they simply aren't a very good charity. As much as folks are trying to put distance between UCF and Rev3 - UCF could not pull off this race without the full support of Rev3 - which makes Rev3 just as responsible for this as UCF.

Irrelevant to my point.

---

__________________________________________________
Follow my blog - Follow me on Twitter - Facebook Page
Powered by Accelerate3

Because any additional coverage would take stress and effort off her if god forbid something awful happens.

TravisT - all you seem to do is attack people who are questioning whether Lance should be involved with this event. Why don't you back off the ad hominem attacks and come up with an actual logical argument for why you think it's right for Rev3 to involve themselves with Armstrong?

What's irrelevant is your opinion about why my wife enters a race.

I have tried to find any instance of someone being denied benifits due to the fact that they crashed in a tri. There was nothing that came up. Perhaps you can post a link to a story? I am sure that would be of interest to everyone here as we all do races.

Sometimes it is easy to lose sight of the forest through the trees

I am not a Lance fanboy, highly disagree with the way he conducted his career, his use of lawyers and deceit. Because of his foundation, that often leave people at odd ends. Cancer is a deadly disease that rips apart families. I am not an ends justifies the means person, and just because one has charitable causes, to me does not excuse or justify other conduct.

Lost in his whole message though, and especially in many of my posts, is I still love the Rev 3 Family and series of races.

To me they are put in a tough area. I think ultimately, for Charlie and Company this is about Cancer, raising money, and really caring about families.

By that same degree, because I love and respect them, I will always voice a dissenting opinion when I disagree with a direction. That is always just my opinion, and in the end, I want to see them continue to grow and flourish. I love the fact they do so much for the UCF, and especially things like the Run Across America, this is just one area where I wish something different was done. In someways that is selfish on my part to fit my one degree of character and beliefs, but at the same time, I still respect and love the Rev 3 family, even though I may disagree with a point or two here and there.

At the same time what gets lost in some of this is something that I have become aware of over the last few weeks in the sport via many posts in this thread and others, and most of that is in regards to the USAT/USADA and what is provided or not provided to us as athletes.

To some degree, a lot of my contention was this going from a USAT sanctioned race to a non-USAT sanctioned race, and at the same time related to testing in the field for both the pros and AGers. To that point, does the USAT mean that the field is clean? While they will act as an enforcement body and ban racers from the field, to what degree do they encourage and promote testing.

The fact that they will provide a ranking and even certify some to be "All American" does this really hold any merit? Or are we in fact allowing PED users and abusers to get accolades at the expense of clean athletes?

Perhaps one of the bigger questions to be raised out of all of this is what assurances do we have of having a clean field? This is not just a Rev 3 issue, but a WTC and USAT issue. Testing for the WTC seems to be a non-factor for the most part as well. The more pros I have talked to on the issue, the more I find that even the Podium and Race winners are rarely if at all tested.

So while the lightning rod may be whether it is right for a banned athlete to race, whether it is a charity or race that has governing body change for allowance, perhaps the bigger issue beyond that is what is the state of testing in our sport as a whole as well as what does the USAT provide to this degree. The USAT as a body does more than just WTC and Rev 3 races, in fact, these two orgs probably comprise a MINIMUM of the races they rank and act as the body for.

Out of my 5 races this year, 4 were USAT, 2 were Rev 3, one was WTC and I saw no testing at any of those events.

It seems to me, that logically, as a body, the burden and consistency should really come from the USAT to assure that testing is consistent to some degree under all races that fall under their umbrella. That goes to the WTC, as well as Rev 3, as well as all the smaller and independent race orgs and bodies that contract with the WTC for coverage. Just as they provide an consistent insurance and rules umbrella, perhaps as athletes it is time for us to pressure them to provide for consistent testing and enforcement requirements.

Just an aside, but when I started thinking on how the importance of USAT ranking was to many folks, it occurred to me how easy it would be for many to cherry pick smaller races to improve rank, and what would the net result of that be.

Because Rev3 is a first-class organization, I think ultimately they will come to regret this decision. They can call it whatever they want, but when LA pins on a number and crosses a starting line, he is racing. When he folded his hand in front of USADA he gave up that privilege. LA can dispute the allegations however he wants until the end of time, he cannot dispute the fact that he renounced his privilege to compete in any event under our NGB or other signatory to WADA code.

I liken it to back when Bill Clinton perjured himself in his deposition for the Paula Jones suit. Ultimately it may not mean diddly to history, but when he did that he lost his privilege to consider himself an attorney and an officer of the court. Those of us who earned that same privilege consider it a betrayal when someone who has sworn an oath to tell the truth then lies. As an athlete I consider it a betrayal when an athlete competes dishonestly, and the penalty is the same for both: a public shunning.

To be clear, this is irrelevant to what LA has done for the cause of families suffering with cancer. I think my mind is strong enough to maintain two distinct thoughts at the same time and retain the ability to function. It's a shame that Rev3 and its management is unable to make the distinction, separating LA the athlete from LA the crusader.

They chose to ignore the distinction, and I think it reduces them as an organization.

I have not spoken to Charlie at length over this, nor have I asked him about who made the decision or what. Though at the same time this was an existing race before, run by UCF and when it was announced last year, it seemed like a good merging of Rev 3 as a race org, and a good cause, fighting cancer.

That being said, and not being a Lance Fanboy, I did notice that I think Doug Ulman is the ceo of Livestrong, as well as the founder of UCF, so in the end, this could be Lance pulling the strings in someway and really out of Rev 3s hands.

That being said, I know Rev 3 is dedicated to the athletes, families and the experience, any as a small organization, they dedicated a huge amount of hours and effort to do their run across America. I think Tim Andrus stated that this was UCFs decision and pretty much Rev 3 supported them, and from the Rev 3 perspective, I am sure this is about fighting Cancer, helping families and athletes. They may take some hits over it, but that is also the way Rev 3 is... They would rather get slammed if it meant improving the lives of those suffering, so to a large degree, I have to support and respect that.

So part of that was lost on me as well, and I had not made the association that the Half Full was really a UCF race, Doug Ulman started the UCF and Doug is also the CEO at Livestrong.

I still don't like the decision. I think things could have been done differently that would have respected the ban, still allowed involvement, and to some degree, am seeing this more as a Lance backdooring things.

Whether I like the decision or not, I am sure Rev 3 is more concerned about those suffering with cancer and less concerned with some of the other implications. I am not sure we will ever know who made what decision or pulled what strings, but as a whole knowing Charlie and Rev 3, this is more about the people from there side, and leaving the politics and the like to the arm chair quarterbacks.

 
The way I see it, Rev3 is willing to let an apparently non negligible portion of its competitors, unhappy with their decision to let Lance in,
just to get Lance in. To me, that sounds like a big 'fuck you' from Rev3 to those who had already committed to their organization, and their
races.

I work in Cancer research, so I'm quite sensitive to the topic of raising awareness etc. But since when has racing been the only way to raise
money and awareness? There are many many other ways, and the Lance defenders make it seem like him racing Rev3 is the only way to do
so. It's certainly not the only, and it's not even the best way. There are many things he could do to raise awareness where he would touch
far more people in 4h, than being swimming, biking and running in freaking lycra. So, the assumption that those against his participation in
triathlons are selfish and don't care about cancer screening, prevention, and research is just preposterous. Wait, no. It's stupid.

x2

All the people who have propped up Rev3 over the years as the anti-WTC of triathlons, should now eat their words.

The Challenge series had the opportunity to take in Lance, but they rightfully declined as opposed to trying to find a loophole to get him in.

---

__________________________________________________________________________
My marathon PR is "under three, high twos. I had a two hour and fifty-something."

con·vict (kn-vkt)
v. con·vict·ed, con·vict·ing, con·victs
v.tr.
1. Law To find or prove (someone) guilty of an offense or crime, especially by the verdict of a court: The jury convicted the defendant of manslaughter.
2. To show or declare to be blameworthy; condemn: His remarks convicted him of a lack of sensitivity.
3. To make aware of one's sinfulness or guilt.


Seems perfectly appropriate, based on the above definition, to call Armstrong a "convicted doper."