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.

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."

You are a thief as you stole that from thefreedictionary.com. I just made you aware of that fact. So now you are a convicted thief. I shall refer to you as such in all my postings to you.

Alan Shearer - Convicted thief.

I also love the argument I've seen in a few posts that says - "Rev3 had nothing to do with this decision, but good for Rev3 for letting Lance race!"
You have to choose - either Rev3 was a part of this decision and deserves credit/criticism or they had nothing to do with it. Given that they are promoting the heck out of Armstrong on their website I'd say it was the former rather than the latter.

Do you really think that charities have any power in their partnerships with corporations? Usually charities are tripping over themselves to make sure that they make their sponsors happy. Unless UCF is completely inept - of course they got rev3's support before getting this deal done!

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.

Take a look at these:

https://twitter.com/LIVESTRONGCEO = Doug Ulman

Does Lance Armstrong have anything to do with LiveStrong? Perhaps hiring a CEO or a say in the CEO?

Next:

http://www.ulmanfund.org/...nder-Doug-Ulman.aspx

Same Doug Ulman as the Founder of the UCF

This is also something that was just announced, weeks out, not months out. When Rev 3 partnered with UCF to bring the Rev 3 experience to the Half Full, Lance was not only not registered, but not banned.

In fact, if this was at all ABOVE BOARD, I would have expected that upon returning to Tri, this would have been the FIRST RACE Lance through his hat into and would have promoted the crap out of this for months and months.

To me this is more indicative of WHO Lance is.

You have your foundation and as part of it, your CEO runs a spin off or related foundation focused on kids with Cancer. You have the ability to bring attention to it, yet instead of spending the year driving traffic and dollars, Lance was focused on WTC, Panama, Kona, Honu... HIS RACES, and not Cancer. Only AFTER he is banned, and only in the weeks where basically all is signed and done, does LANCE show up on the scene.

If Lance is such a CHAMPION of the fight against cancer, why was this not one of his KEY RACES for his return to Triathlons.

In fact it did not even have to be a race... It could have been a Meet n Greet... See Lance before Kona, etc...

How is it only NOW that his name comes attached to a race that is owned and run by the CEO of his Livestrong foundation?

Patently untrue. Many plans have riders regarding at-risk activities. You might do well to read the fine print of your insurance. My employer self insures. I have it writing that Im covered, but every policy has limits and Im not worried about breaking my arm, im worried about a bill if I get smoked by a car and im in the hospital for weeks and months. My wifes income isnt great, and I dont want her deciding between keeping our house or paying to keep me medically treated if im seriously injured.

I stand by my assessment. While there may be " donations" raced through his racing, there was a cherry payment from WTC to Livestrong, a large portion of the funds were to be raised through auctioning off 4 Kona slots in 2012 and 2013, and there other money would similarly be raised through Foundation Race slots just as they are today.

Case in point, from Lance's own words:

Armstrong gave a brief description at the media conference call of the mechanics of raising funds through this partnership. "There are three pillars to this program," he said. "First, WTC made a sizeable contribution to my foundation."

So by this token why no mention of UCF? Why no pushing of the Half Full?

You have a race dedicated to raising awareness for kids with Cancer, that was founded by the CEO of your own foundation, and the first tieing of the two are only after he gets banned and many races exclude him.

I still maintain his EGO and his racing, and receiving a SIZEABLE contribution to HIS FOUNDATION were driving factors