And a couple of LA's doctors.

Indeed, good point.

1) you still dance around the point I made. Yes, kingpins change but the argument put forth, that I am disputing using what Tyler said, was that LA was the one who got USPS doping.

2a) You seem to like to go for the insults a lot.
2b) I have no need to answer because it's obvious it was simply you trolling and because it has nothing to do with the actual discussion. No matter how much you claim otherwise or try to insult me, that fact won't change.

I think we reached that point many years ago. Now it just comes down to making excuses for doping in the past.

I'm waiting for bruyneel, the UCI, Carmichael, to all crash in flames too. Bunch of crooks. And using livestrong as a shield against doping accusations is by far the worst he has done.

I personally want to see the Livestrong tax filings from 2011 and 2012. IIRC, the amount for lawyer expenses went up quite a bit between 2008 and 2009, and I wonder if the same trend has continued.

But think of the foundation's jet fuel savings now that there's no need to dodge USADA controls.

It's funny how everyone says: it's a foundation that does a lot of good, and it must go on. I agree. It should. But not at all cost.
The Susan Komen foundation, despite doing a lot for cancer patients, survivors, etc. was under fire big time for its stand regarding
planned parenthood. People stood against the SK foundation, and it backtracked. Livestrong will survive even if Lance comes clean
(I think). Actually, given people's very short memory, I'm sure a good PR group will turn things around nicely after a few months of coming
clean, and maybe to everyone's advantage. This is America after all ;-)

If you believe that the truth sets you free, then it may be that Tyler is now free, Floyd is now free, Vaughters is free. Not rich, but free.

Lance has the jet, the dough, the broads, the Taiwanese houseboy named Tang (not starting anything here) and continues to be defiant, continues to rationalize his behavior, continues to "protect the brand", continues to receive adoration from sycophantic cycling fans and legitimate admirers of his good works for cancer. And, one presumes, he could feel that he cannot come clean because it would ruin Livestrong and would be selfish.

But he's not free, is he? He keeps living a lie. Or a bunch of them. But does he need to come clean? Can he live a great life with a clear conscience or without a clear conscience? Is it simply a question of being pragmatic? Does this way of living work? Can a man live a life of integrity anyway? Is his conscience clear? And do public (or private) confessions really set one free?

Or is Lance just a dick?

So many questions.

Tell me, oh sage online rabbis and grand arbiters of life....

It's verboten to suggest such a thing, but the world would not be significantly, if at all, worse off without LiveStrong. (the .org that is, not the .com).

1. Charitable giving is not a zero-sum game, but it's close to it. Money that would have gone to LiveStrong.org will instead go to other charitable organizations. Another way to look at it is that LiveStrong's existence is reducing charitable receipts for other charities (and vice versa). So, unless you think LiveStrong is a more worthy charity to receive money than others, the loss of LiveStrong would not have a net negative effect on the world.

2. LiveStrong does not support cancer research. Again, $0 from LiveStrong go to cancer research. LiveStrong's programs are for cancer "awareness" and to help families of cancer victims negotiate the difficult insurance and financial terrain they find themselves in. Without doubt, this is of great value to some people, but a relatively small set of people compared to those who stand to benefit from scientific cancer research (ie, do a google search on the gains made in treating and preventing melanoma in recent years). In a 2 year span, only 207 people were helped via LiveStrong's walk-in center. And, I don't know what the fungible term "cancer awareness" really means. Are people unaware of cancer? LiveStrong counts all of its marketing dollars for PR, yellow bracelets, ads, etc... not as expenses, but as cancer awareness programs. "Awareness" programs. So, when you donate or buy your $1 bracelet, a substantial chunk of that money is used for programs with the sole intent of building the LiveStrong brand.

The majority of cancer charities put money towards cancer research. If LiveStrong were to disappear and the majority of receipts they would have received become spread across a variety of other cancer charities, then the net dollars going towards scientific cancer research would actually increase.

Your second point isn't really correct. They do a lot of work pertaining to cancer screening and prevention, which is part of research. There are some
cancers for which screening is a key element to curing (colorectal for instance).

"In a 2 year span, only 207 people were helped via LiveStrong's walk-in center."

i was at the livestrong headquarters when they had their big shindig with all their folks from around the country come in. that's how they do it. it all emanates from one building. they don't have chapters. they think that would be an inefficient - for them - use of their dollars.

if i had a particular cancer, and i wanted to make sure i had the best outcome, i would not fly to austin and avail myself of the walk-in center.

i wrote about this over the past spring if you care to read about it. i went into it expecting that the outside mag article was correct. i came out of it realizing - after i read that article for the 6th or 7th time - that the author went in intending to write a particular piece, and decided to write that piece, evidence to the contrary.

this is of course completely separate from the question of whether armstrong took PEDs. a vehement critic of armstrong is former velo news write charles pelkey. but charles is himself a recent cancer survivor, and charles very carefully parses between livestrong and armstrong. he's a fan of one and a critic of the other.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

42? :p

Quote:

Yes, kingpins change but the argument put forth, that I am disputing using what Tyler said, was that LA was the one who got USPS doping.

Ok, got it. I agree. LA did not start the doping in cycling, by this particular team, or any other sport. Many doped before his entry into the peloton, concurrent to his career, and after his departure; independent of his sphere of influence. Based on his interactions with former teammates and the UCI, I still believe he was one of the kingpins in his sphere of influence.

Quote:

I have no need to answer because it's obvious it was simply you trolling and because it has nothing to do with the actual discussion. No matter how much you claim otherwise or try to insult me, that fact won't change.

I haven't insulted you at all. It's absolutely germain to the discussion. If the people named in USADA's allegations aren't promoters of doping, as you seem to believe, the answer should be simple. Actually, when I came to see the value in banning ALL of the ring leaders for life was when I put together how much influence they've had. I don't want them around to influence future riders. It really doesn't matter who started the doping on any given team, I wouldn't want to be part of a team lead by the afore mentioned, nor would I want my children involved with them.

my first post in a lance thread....

Livestrong does more than you outlined......

"Livestrong will survive even if Lance comes clean "

If LA comes clean will people call him a liar and refuse to believe him just as they are doing with Tyler and Landis right now?

This is an important point. There is a difference, though there are still blurred lines than need to be made clean. Livestrong spends ~250k annually to sponsor Lance's U23 cycling team. Why? U23 teams don't make cycling headlines outside of core cycling fans so explain the ROI here? Sure they had a lot of talent this year, and had some pretty good success, but when this season is over, and Lance has to give up the U23 license, will livestrong spend ~250k to sponsor another team in the name of awareness if it's owned by someone else? I personally doubt it. There are a couple other questionable fronts regarding the spending habits of Livestrong in regards to Lance's interest but that's the example i think illustrates why many who are anti-lance have a hard time separating the two.

I think Livestrong does a good job, And I think it can do more. Hopefully the rumored influx of donations are well used.

And yet Contador did eventually pop for clen. maybe it was more of "not right now lance, it'll look too obvious"

For people outside of the European professional cycling world it is impossible to understand the situation with doping. It is impossible to understand the group dynamics, the pressure, the 'ethics,' the history. I haven't raced in Europe, but I have worked with people who have and when you get past about 1000 walls you find out what it was really like and it's the kind of thing that would make being the top-target-geek in high-school look like Christmas at Baskin Robbins being served by strippers (male or female, depending on your preference).

From what I've heard it was a situation like going into the army or severe fraternity hazing - your self-worth is destroyed systematically so that you can be rebuilt as a cyclist who is willing to dope, and then when you dope and get the results or do the work that the team wants you to you are worthwhile. And it's OK that you're doping to do it because everyone is; because that is the only way to get through the ridiculous, demanding races that the sponsors and fans want to see. And now that you are doping you have to stay quiet about it, if you speak out the entire world that you live in will come crashing down on you and everyone that is your friend now will hate you and all the self-worth that you have (which was given to you by the team and people that you doped with) will be destroyed and there will basically be no reason to go on living.

The number of cyclists on anti-depressants and using recreational drugs to combat the psychological disaster that this system breeds I'm told was ridiculous.

You can fault Tyler for lying in the past, sure, I do. But I understand it. To say that he lied before so now he's lying too is preposterous if you know the culture - it's almost like Stockholm Syndrome where you have to love your captors and be willing to protect them at any cost. I give him a ton of credit for talking out, and I really wish that he could only have done it sooner.

Sure, cycling gave Tyler everything he had, but the detritus of living that lie took it all away from him as well.

Um, because maybe her comments were NOT benign. No doubt Lance spoke to her and especially Hincapie to find out what they were gonna say. They most likely told Lance they would not publicly turn on him, even for money, but they also most likely told him in no uncertain terms that they weren't going to lie under oath for him. Hence, he folded. Is this really too difficult for people to see?

It's no harder to see than sarcasm...

Carl, you're such a lance fanboy!!

Well said.
Motorola showed up in Italy in '96 (?) with a bunch of US studs and couldn't hang onto the back of the race. They quickly got with the program.
The rest is history.

Motorola begans in '91 (and was really the same team as 7-11, which showed up in Europe in '85).

Why would it take until showing up in Italy in '96 tostartma doping program?

---

Chicago Cubs - 2016 WORLD SERIES Champions!!!!

"If ever the time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." - Samuel Adams

I kind of want to get one now as it now back in style.

---

---

Heath Dotson
HD Coaching:Website |Twitter: 140 Characters or Less|Facebook:Follow us on Facebook