Usps - Lance

[wc1934]

wish I could get this return on my investments

By ANTHONY McCARTNEY

LOS ANGELES - Studies commissioned by the United States Postal Service estimated the agency received $103.6 million in domestic value from sponsoring Lance Armstrong's cycling teams during their heyday.

Obtained by The Associated Press, the reports by a pair of marketing firms cover the 2001-2004 time period.

Records obtained by ESPN revealed that the postal service spent $32 million promoting Armstrong's teams between 2001 and 2004. Armstrong won the Tour de France in each of those years.

The sponsorship deal has received scrutiny in recent months as federal investigators look into claims of organized doping in professional cycling. Armstrong repeatedly has denied using performance-enhancing drugs.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

LOS ANGELES (AP) - Newly released records show the United States Postal Service spent $31.9 million sponsoring Lance Armstrong's team during the height of the rider's Tour de France dominance.

Financial records obtained by ESPN through a Freedom of Information request revealed the previously undisclosed amount of Postal Service spending from 2001 to 2004, when the federal agency heavily promoted the rider. Armstrong won the Tour each year from 1999 to 2005. ESPN reported on the records Friday.

The sponsorship could become an issue in either a federal investigation into doping in professional cycling, or a federal whistleblower lawsuit that disgraced cyclist Floyd Landis has reportedly filed against Armstrong.

Landis has claimed Armstrong among others used performance-enhancing drugs, which - if found to be true - would have been a violation of their agreement with the Postal Service.

Armstrong has repeatedly denied doping, and his attorneys have said there never was any wrongdoing regarding the USPS sponsorship.

"Over the years, many different sponsors have seen - and continue to see - the benefits of associating with Lance and his cycling teams," Armstrong spokesman Mark Fabiani said in a statement.

Several Armstrong teammates and associates have appeared before a grand jury in Los Angeles that has been investigating pro cycling for months, but no charges have been filed.

A service of YellowBrix, Inc. .

[93legendti]

Now you know why the Feds are going after Lance for fraud...

[wintermute]

He now is worth -30%, similar to Tiger Woods:
http://msn.foxsports.com/golf/story/Tiger-Woods-Lance-Armstrong-worst-celebrity-endorsements-2010-011411

[97CSI]

If LA proves to be clean will he be able to sue for all the value lost? Paying $32mm and receiving $122mm in value in return seems a strange fraud. Will the USPS have to give the $90mm back if LA is guilty?

[Fixed]

say what you want about lance but he was a superman as a kid at iron-kids where i met him actually i pointed which way for him to run
cheers

[fiddlels]

And we wonder why the USPS is in severe debt...

[572cv]

it is the USPS (not LA) that received $103 million in value for the investment of $31 million. Anyone who advertises would consider this a fine investment. As to the USPS being in trouble financially, perhaps it could be said that there were too few good investments like this one.

[FlashUNC]

I was a bit shocked to read ESPN's story and see in the last year of the deal, Lance received $1.47 million in salary, while Tyler Hamilton, the #2 rider on the team, earned only $150k.

I can see how that can breed some resentment.

[michael white]

that's normal, Flash. Look at salaries for a NBA team. Find a sport that's not like that.

[Hawker]

While I was a Lance fan back then...I always wondered why the heck the UPS was sponsoring the team. I mean, it is essentially a monopoly and they certainly don't need international exposure...so why did they need advertising?

[merckx]

While I was a Lance fan back then...I always wondered why the heck the UPS was sponsoring the team. I mean, it is essentially a monopoly and they certainly don't need international exposure...so why did they need advertising?

USPS was looking to increase international shipping business. There is a vast market for this service. It was a legitimate advertising venture.

[BumbleBeeDave]

Look who paid for the "study."

"Studies commissioned by the United States Postal Service estimated . . . "

This is all part of a very familiar game. The USPS paid for the study and I highly doubt they did it to establish only the fact that they got a bargain for the money they paid Lance--which makes him look a bit better.

Far more likely that point in Lance's favor was carefully balanced against the larger goals of such a "study." (Calling something a "study" always makes it sound like something legitimate done by academics and scientists--even if it was just shill for hire from a marketing firm.)

This study does several other things. Mainly it get's the fact out there publicly that Lance got $32 million from the USPS and if he doped to get it then he's defrauded the US government out of that amount. That's a BIG crime, isn't it? Seems to me the federal prosecutor's office would also have a vested interest in getting this figure out in public to help demonize their suspect of choice and minimize criticisms--including some on this forum--that this isn't a big deal and they are wasting taxpayer's dollars going after him. After all, he possibly stole $32 MILLION from Uncle Sam!

Huh? What was that? . . . You say you've read the story carefully and it says the USPS spent $32 million promoting Armstrong's teams, not directly paying Lance that amount?

Well, congratulations! You're exceptional and have a strong interest in this case. But most people aren't and don't. They will just see this story in the paper and see "Lance," "Postal Service," "$32 million," and "fraud." The overall subliminal message they will take away is hat the USPS paid Lance $32 million dollars and he's a fraud! Oh, my!

And that's exactly the message that the USPS and the federal prosecutors WANT the public to take away from this story. It's a very familiar game called "public relations" and "messaging" and "climate-setting" and there are some very slick people on both sides of this who are getting paid a whole lot of money to try and shape public opinion using methods just like this. They're not lying outright, but it's certainly what politicians would call "disingenuous"--that's a fancy word for indirectly lying.

I would put far more credence in this story is it came from some agency that had more solidly established non-partisan credentials--not a marketing/PR firm hired by the Postal Service (and possibly with funds thrown in there from the federal prosecutors--we will never know for certain)

Follow the money. That's what we were always told in journalism school. And it's true. We would get press releases all the time at the paper with great news about "studies" by some organization or agency that offered "conclusive proof" that this drug or that treatment or this "miracle food" helped cure some disease. It always turned out if you dug just a bit deeper that the study or research had been commissioned by the company that makes the drug, or the one that makes the equipment to administer the treatment, or the trade group for the farmers who grow the "miracle food."

They're messin' with your head. And they're good at it. And there are more people out there than ever before who are paid to do this. And there are fewer REAL journalists out there than ever before who are skilled at and paid to root out this kind of subliminal manipulation. That's why I rarely believe anything like this I see in print any more. At the bottom line, it's all just a battle for the bottom line.

Wait for the grand jury results. Are they gonna charge him with anything? THAT is the REAL news . . .

BBD

[93legendti]

It would be in USPS' interest to make it look like Lance and the team were a BAD investment. That would allow the USPS to sue to recoup salaries in the event Lance was found to have used PEDs.

Since this study is against USPS' financial interests, one can take the study as (more or less) accurate. 7 years after they stopped sponsoring his team, why would the USPS want to make Lance look good?

Any fed prosecutor seeking to convict Lance would wince at this story. It makes the gov't look small and petty, especially in this day and age. It makes Lance likeable. He MADE money for the taxpayers! What a SOB! :rolleyes:

Why not go after someone who actually STOLE millions from the gov't?
Dave, a grand jury is a one sided exercise. There's a reason why there's a trial after the grand jury indictment.


Of course, if you're hater, everything supports your viewpoint.

[BumbleBeeDave]

Of course, if you're hater, everything supports your viewpoint.

. . . of course, everything supports YOUR viewpoint, eh, Adam? ;)

BBD

[93legendti]

. . . of course, everything supports YOUR viewpoint, eh, Adam? ;)

BBD
I wouldn't know. I don't love Lance and I haven't started more than 10 threads that are pro-Lance. But, you admit you hate Lance, right?

[Ahneida Ride]

I mailed a letter to pay a bill yesterday because of Lance.

Yea right. ....

what government agency is not in debt?

[BengeBoy]

wish I could get this return on my investments

By ANTHONY McCARTNEY

LOS ANGELES - Studies commissioned by the United States Postal Service estimated the agency received $103.6 million in domestic value from sponsoring Lance Armstrong's cycling teams during their heyday.

These kinds of "studies" are highly speculative at best. I looked for any news stories that actually posted the studies themselves, and didn't see any (if someone sees one, let me know).

Usually what they do is count how many "impressions" you are getting for your sponsorship. So you would count how many times newspaper articles about Lance mentioned USPS; count how many seconds any jerseys with the USPS logo were on TV; how many magazine articles mentioned, etc. They then multiply the value of the impressions x the equivalent cost to buy that much advertising. So, if a 10 second clip of LA winning the TDF is shown in CNN, they impute a value for that and assume that's the value of the sponsorship.

These kinds of studies are "hopeful" at best. In the 10 second slip showing LA commenting on his race, are viewers really thinking about the key benefits of sending packages vs. USPS? Or are they listening to LA describe how he won a race? Or are they walking out of their TV room to get a beer? If they are listening, are the same kinds of people you would reach if you bought more targeted advertising?

Just because it might have "cost" $100M to buy as many impressions as the USPS got for its sponsorship dollars doesn't mean that the sponsorship delivered $100M in "value."

There is a huge industry built up around trying to convince companies that sports sponsorship is a great idea, and usually these kinds of studies are done by folks who have a vested interest in perpetuating the notion that sports sponsorship is a good idea.

I have not seen the study in question so if it was done in a different way than what I've described I'm happy to stand corrected.

[FlashUNC]

that's normal, Flash. Look at salaries for a NBA team. Find a sport that's not like that.


Totally disagree. Yeah, the guy at the end of the bench makes a fraction of what the star player does. But the Second Banana paid 10 times less than the star? Atlanta Hawks (the team I live and die with) is a perfect example. Joe Johnson makes about $17 mln per under his current contract. Al Horford, the second best player, makes about $10 mln per. That makes sense.

But to pay guy who can get on the podium at the tour in his own right 10 times less than the "star"?

That's ridiculous.