Not judging npage148 the person, just his hate-filled post.

Tribeer - I'm going to say the same thing to you that I said to the other guy. Pointing out the faults of people who are against Armstrong is not the same as putting together a logical argument for why Rev3 should have anything to do with him. It's called an ad hominem logical fallacy - and this site (as is any message board) is full of them.

I am not disagreeing that argument can't be made both ways, but at the same time, I still find it more than unusual that he only gets involved last minute with Half Full after he is banned.

Let me ask you this.

If LiveStrong was your foundation and your CEO had founded a similar organization that bears his name and has a triathlon dedicated to helping kids with cancer, would it or would it not be on your calendar if you were just returning to triathlon?

If it were me, it should would be.

Many can rightfully argue what does it matter as long as the money flowing is is greater than it would be had it been absent.

My point about only giving a shit after the ban is more directed towards the UCF Half Full, i.e. I did not hear any mention about him doing this race or promoting this race in any shape or form until AFTER the ban and just coincidentally, the race is loosely tied to his LiveStrong Foundation and they drop their previous USAT accreditation so he can race.

Over the last few years I looked at the available financial records and annual reports and I found the amount spent of travel, legal,etc somewhat disturbing:

This is a so-so job on covering some of the topics:

http://fraudbytes.blogspot.com/...g-investigation.html

But to me, part of the biggest motivating factors is money flowing into his foundation by which he is in turn enriched. Similarly, I will not donate to Susan Koman for similar overhead/administration usage of fun issues.

I also never saw a breakdown of where the million dollars being raised is really going. If all the Kona Slot sales, race foundation slots, etc all flow into LiveStrong, then again it is far more about him then the cancer. I know many have benefited and am grateful for that but also think a lot has been taken off the top

Again, if the Cancer fight was so important, and your foundation CEO is Doug Ulman, and the foundation he started and is named after has a triathlon focused on raising money and awareness for kids with Cancer, how can he NOT be involved except upto two weeks before and only after it appears to be one of the only races he can get into.

Too many coincidences for me

His emotive language doesn't make a logical argument: Ever!

I'm critizing the foul language and not the person. His language fans the flame.

Wow, so ReV3 is saying "fxck you" to those who are unhappy to see Lance race?

That's even over the top for you ! As far as being quite sensitive to cancer "patients" I lost both my parents to cancer. So I don't think your statement regarding that has little or no more bearing on cancer survivors or their family.

"If LiveStrong was your foundation and your CEO had founded a similar organization that bears his name and has a triathlon dedicated to helping kids with cancer, would it or would it not be on your calendar if you were just returning to triathlon? "

And I was still fighting a sanction and still holding onto the small possibility that I could get back into the parnership I made with WTC to *maybe* race Kona? No, this race 6 days before Kona on the other side of the world would not be on my calendar. Simple answer.

This is what I mean about people ignoring the facts that hurt their argument.

Learn how to read you bozo Lance Fan #7...

Livestrong was in a WTC partnership during those races as I recall. So Lance racing WTC races would be promoting Livestrong awareness and cancer awareness.

oh, right Francois's your the one who played the sensitive to cancer research card not me.

Name calling, my, my, how cancer research must love you

"His emotive language doesn't make a logical argument: Ever!

I'm critizing the foul language and not the person. His language fans the flame."

You're still doing it. One logical argument please for why it was the right thing for rev3 to not only allow Armstrong to participate, but also become the main marketing tool of this race.

It does actually. Thanks for your concern though.

How about one has nothing to do with the other? But for the fact the fundraiser is a sporting event what difference does it make? What's next Lance shouldn't be able to speak to cancer survivor's if they happen to be a cyclist?

I just thought your comment was in poor taste, that is equating cancer research somehow has a higher moral ground than the victim's themselves.

also I might add well done on the name calling (not bad for someone of non-American origin to pull that one out of the hat).

I am glad the folks at REV3 have been able to capitalize on his fame and lack of ability to get into sanctioned races. The post is, well, yawn..........................

But triathlon, the sport with rules is being manipulated into a novelty fund raiser involving sbr to allow a doper to stick a finger up at authority. I cannot see how this is good for the integrity of our sport.

As I said, you may want to take a couple of reading classes. I've never said that cancer research has a higher moral ground than the victims themselves.
First, because your sentence is oddly phrased to say the least. Second, because I certainly don't consider research more important than patients in any way.

And thanks for the comment about non-American. I must say that your English is not bad at all for someone whose native language is American.

You know your are quite the twit ! Your welcome for the the comment and enjoy your stay here in America where, obviously, you can say pretty much anything, within reason, you want to.

You obviously have a superiority complex. So why did you feel the need to throw in the cancer research comment if it wasn't to play that card?

"How about one has nothing to do with the other? But for the fact the fundraiser is a sporting event what difference does it make? What's next Lance shouldn't be able to speak to cancer survivor's if they happen to be a cyclist?"

Armstrong can speak to whomever he likes. My problem is that a racing series, which seemed to be gaining legitimacy, is using his name and image to market one of their races. I don't care who they say is the race director - this race is featured prominently on their website and is listed as part of their series. Therefore they have final control over major issues - like changing the insurance at the last minute because Armstrong can't be affiliated with a USAT race.

I know this will astonish a lot of people, but cancer research will go on with or without Lance Armstrong. People give money and support cancer research because they have been impacted by it in some way. Armstrong has been given a lifetime ban. Any sporting association that respects and understands the damage done to sports and athletes by the doping culture needs to completely dissociate themselves from this man.

that's just it, the cause is bigger than that! this isn't me being a lance guy, there is no sticking a finger at authority (except maybe a finger at cancer). I don't think most people see as literally as that (integrity yea or nay).

If the cause is bigger than that, it shouldn't need to to invite a doper to compete or publicise the event. It should show some respect for the sport it is using as a vehicle to raise its funds.

In my countries of origin, I can say pretty much anything I want to. But thanks. A superiority complex? Hmmm...you start playing the 'foreign card' with me, yet
your English isn't very good.

I threw the cancer research in because I know what I'm talking about when it comes to cancer research. Since the usual argument of those who think Lance should
be allowed to do whatever he wants is: you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to cancer, I threw that in. I thought it would shorten the discussion, but
I guess I wrongly assumed that most could read. By the way, why did you throw in that you lost both parents to cancer (all my condolences, sincerely)? For the same
reason. To tell me that you know how it affects people. Given the current cancer rates, you can be sure that pretty much every single person on the forum has been
affected by cancer. So, maybe we can stop playing the emotional card here. We're ALL affected. My whole point is that:
1. There are many ways to raise funding against cancer (be it research, screening, prevention, awareness)
2. Lance is banned from racing
3. If he has 4hrs to spare, I'm sure he can spend it far more constructively to raise funding and awareness.

See, I think you paint this too much as black and white. Here's why, the bottom line is your correct, cancer research and cancer, too will continue long past you, me and Lance are gone from this earth. Let's face it Rev3 obviously feels that they have more to gain than lose. The integrity of the sport will not suffer one iota because of this

No, speaking is exactly what Lance SHOULD be doing. If he cared at all about doing whats right, he would have put his name to this months ago, spoken, signed autographs and passed out finisher medals. Instead to him it's all about the competition. The cancer thing is just secondary. If kona was a possibility there's no way he'd even show up for this.

Lance Armstrong is popular and people will be motivated to go to the race because of Lance. Rev3 will receive a lot of publicity for inviting Lance and letting him race. It's a big story.

Everyday, I meet people proudly wearing the Livestrong yellow band. Lance sells.

These are the facts and nothing but the facts.

Exactly. He can go give a talk with a large audience, and a TV crew. It will touch far more people than participating in a fringe sport, in a low key race.