Floyd on Lance: "He's a bully"

[Elefantino]

From the Graham Bensinger show (http://sports.yahoo.com/video/player/news/Graham_Bensinger_InDepth/25954415). Apologies if you've seen it already.

[yashcha]

Interesting interview. Really sad and tough to watch.

[djg]

Er . . . how cool is it? Because first I thought, "no, I don't really feel like watching Floyd again," and then I gave it a shot for 10 seconds and I really thought, "no, I was right, I don't really feel like it."

He's a bully? Ok, so . . . now he drops the bombshell?

[Lifelover]

Bullying amoungst kids is a very serious issue and we can not expect the victims to be able to handle it without outside help.

However, as an adult, it is a choose to make to allow yourself to be.



Disclaimer: I'm not talking about if the Mob knocks on your door and threatens to break legs. That is real. A Lance threat is not.

[1happygirl]

Icky!!!
& Whiney. Sorry for him. Even if it's true at this point, the delivery is lacking cred.
didn't know it was there, interesting watch for a minute. Bensinger's voice is icky too.

[ahumblecycler]

He should thank LA for his bullying ... it is giving him lots of interview $$$

[bozman]

He should thank LA for his bullying ... it is giving him lots of interview $$$

paying the bills as it were.

[biker72]

Fraud Landis......

[witcombusa]

Fraud Landis......

So you think he is not telling the whole truth then?

Oh wait, you're from TX...

never mind

[oldguy00]

So you think he is not telling the whole truth then?

Oh wait, you're from TX...

never mind

Sure, he's telling the truth now. The fraud part was the last several years....
Lets see, the book, the floyd fairness fund, etc etc

[johnnymossville]

Lance is definitely a bully, it's his style. Is this a surprise to anyone and does it really matter?

[bozman]

Lance is definitely a bully, it's his style. Is this a surprise to anyone and does it really matter?

no and no.

some day this will all go away.

[schneiderrd]

Bully??? Check out "Slaying the Badger". Now Bernard Hinault that was a bully. Landis is a wimp.

[biker72]

So you think he is not telling the whole truth then?

Oh wait, you're from TX...

never mind
Floyd came through the Dallas area soliciting money for the Floyd Fairness Fund to defend against doping allegations. He took the money...then admitted he had taken some performance enhancing drugs. Floyd has zero credibility.

[gasman]

Floyd came through the Dallas area soliciting money for the Floyd Fairness Fund to defend against doping allegations. He took the money...then admitted he had taken some performance enhancing drugs. Floyd has zero credibility.

He took $1 million when he knew that he was guilty.

[firerescuefin]

Oh wait, you're from TX...
never mind


And you're a liberal retrogrouch that "would rather be in boulder".....cmon bro, move on...

[witcombusa]

He took $1 million when he knew that he was guilty.

And just how much has LA taken?

[witcombusa]

And you're a liberal retrogrouch that "would rather be in boulder".....cmon bro, move on...


I'll get off the topic when LA get's burned to the ground. Till then it'll continue....

[firerescuefin]

I don't think bike72 is Branch Lancivian caring a leather bound It's Not About the Bike (Old Testament)....I certainly am a learned to be Lance "hater".

That being said, Floyd has no credibility...and that's of his own doing...that being said, I find much of what he says believable. Now Vaughters, Andreau, and Big George...tha't different.

[norcalbiker]

Landis keep diggin himself deeper and deeper. There is no way a custom will let you go through without a passport no matter who you are.

It's really sad about him keep trying to bring down other players to hell.

[norcalbiker]

I know a good psychiatrist that would be willing to give him a free session for life to cure him. Because he think that Landis is dangerous to himself, maybe not be to public. If he doesn't get any credit at all by bringing others down, this doctor think he may become a suicidal.

[biker72]

Even though Floyd has zero credibility, it's no surprise to me that Lance a is quick tempered, somewhat overbearing, my way or the highway kind of guy.

I work with some guys that rode with Lance in the early years...he's always been like that. Maybe it takes that kind of personality to get through the awful cancer he had. I don't know.

What I do find disturbing are the statements attributed to George Hincapie. George has no axe to grind with anybody. I find him very credible.

[norcalbiker]

My point is about Landis. Whether or not all those people that he mentioned are guilty of charge is really irrelevant for me. I really feel sorry for him.

If you and I are teammates and doing drugs to get ahead and I got caught. What difference would it make if I tell people that so and so did with me. I am still guilty as charge.

[Scott Shire]

I'll get off the topic when LA get's [sic] burned to the ground. Till then it'll continue....

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Kind of a tough statement, man! Almost like you have an actual stake in the matter.

At this point, Lance's demise does little except hurt the Livestrong Foundation. His legacy on the bike is pretty locked in -- he was no Merckx, so what difference does it make if he was better than Anquetil or lesser than Indurain or as good as Coppi but with different strengths? Clean or dirty, he's one of the top guys ever but certainly not the best.

Off the bike he has done more for cancer fundraising than anyone else ever.

[dana_e]

it was interesting.

In a general sense, not just herem but it is always best when really caught, just come clean straight away.

[vjp]

it was good to watch, I really like Floyd I hope that he can be happy now.

A tragic mess for sure, and not handled well but I believe him. If you don't believe him now then you must believe that he didn't dope, and no one dopes...

[topher]

There is really nothing new here to anyone who has been following the Lance/Floyd/Tyler/Frankie postal doping saga... I thought floyd came off much better here than Lance does everytime he opens his mouth...

[witcombusa]

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Kind of a tough statement, man! Almost like you have an actual stake in the matter.



We all have a stake.....a shame you don't see that :no:

[norcalbiker]

If you don't believe him now then you must believe that he didn't dope, and no one dopes...

This is no longer whether you believe Floyd or not. It's a matter of his integrity. Right in my opinion, he has none.

Besides, who am I believe or don't believe on his statement. I have no stake on him or LA. His problem in my opinion is he got caught and LA did not. Lance is doing an incredible thing about Livestrong. And what is Floyd doing? Trying to make money on telling who did dope in the past.

[norcalbiker]

We all have a stake.....a shame you don't see that :no:

And what stake do I have on this matter if you don't mind me asking.

[biker72]

This is no longer whether you believe Floyd or not. It's a matter of his integrity. Right in my opinion, he has none.

Besides, who am I believe or don't believe on his statement. I have no stake on him or LA. His problem in my opinion is he got caught and LA did not. Lance is doing an incredible thing about Livestrong. And what is Floyd doing? Trying to make money on telling who did dope in the past.
+1
Well written..

[CunegoFan]

This is no longer whether you believe Floyd or not. It's a matter of his integrity. Right in my opinion, he has none.

Besides, who am I believe or don't believe on his statement. I have no stake on him or LA. His problem in my opinion is he got caught and LA did not. Lance is doing an incredible thing about Livestrong. And what is Floyd doing? Trying to make money on telling who did dope in the past.

Talking about integrity while defending Armstrong. That is rich. Armstrong continues to travel the world lying to people with terminal disease while stuffing his pockets with money from his fraud. He is no different than Bernie Madoff. Even more sad are those who defend him. At least Landis decided to tell the truth. When will Armstrong do the same?

[e-RICHIE]

Talking about integrity while defending Armstrong. That is rich. Armstrong continues to travel the world lying to people with terminal disease while stuffing his pockets with money from his fraud. He is no different than Bernie Madoff. Even more sad are those who defend him. At least Landis decided to tell the truth. When will Armstrong do the same?


regardless of the comparisons, madoff most likely donated more money to charity.
their income streams and characters both could be scrutinized but i'd be surprised
if madoff didn't give more away atmo.

ps

arrange disorder

:cool: :cool: :cool:
:cool: :cool: :cool:
:p ;) :D

[norcalbiker]

Talking about integrity while defending Armstrong. That is rich. Armstrong continues to travel the world lying to people with terminal disease while stuffing his pockets with money from his fraud. He is no different than Bernie Madoff. Even more sad are those who defend him. At least Landis decided to tell the truth. When will Armstrong do the same?

I am not defending LA. I am just stating my opinion the way I see it.

As for your statement about "Armstrong continues to travel the world lying to people with terminal disease while stuffing his pockets with money from his fraud." You and I don't know that, unless of course your with him while he's doing it.

As for Bernie Madoff? You can't possibly make the comparison, Bernie stole money from people and they were able to prove it and his is now gone. And where is LA? Like you said, he is probably traveling the world promoting his foundation to continue to do good thing with cancer people while others like FLoyd try to bring him down to the ground with him.

[rice rocket]

regardless of the comparisons, madoff most likely donated more money to charity.
their income streams and characters both could be scrutinized but i'd be surprised
if madoff didn't give more away atmo.


Gotta writeoff taxes somehow. ;)

[e-RICHIE]

Gotta writeoff taxes somehow. ;)


gotta write off texas too atmo...

ps

arrange disorder

:D :D :D
:D :D :D
:D :D :cool:

[soulspinner]

gotta write off texas too atmo...

ps

arrange disorder

:D :D :D
:D :D :D
:D :D :cool:

:p

[CunegoFan]

As for your statement about "Armstrong continues to travel the world lying to people with terminal disease while stuffing his pockets with money from his fraud." You and I don't know that, unless of course your with him while he's doing it.
I certainly do know, and so does anyone else with more than two connected neurons. Armstrong is a doper. He tested positive for EPO six times in 1999. He tested positive for corticosteroids in 1999. We now know that he tested positive for EPO in 2001. His teammates have said he is doper. Team staff have said he is a doper. Other riders called him "corticoneck" in the early 90s. He is a doper, and willful blindness to that fact does not make it untrue.

He continues to lie to people with cancer. That is low, really low. I can half understand Madoff. He preyed on the rich. Lots of them begged him to manage their money. Once the Ponzi scheme started, there was no way out. He had to continue so that it would not blow up. But preying on people with terminal disease and their loved ones is despicable. At any time Armstrong could bow out of limelight and kick back on a beach, but he continues to defraud people with cancer, apparently to stroke his own ego and out of sheer meanness.

Like you said, he is probably traveling the world promoting his foundation to continue to do good thing with cancer people while others like FLoyd try to bring him down to the ground with him.
We get it. It is a crying shame that people like Floyd tell the truth. Just a shame. It would be so much better if they continued to lie for Lance. How about Lance sacks up and starts telling the truth for once? How about that?

[norcalbiker]

WOW! So I guess LA decided to get a chemo treatment and surgery on his head for nothing so he can just claimed that he has cancer. Not too mention that you need an oncology and a hospital to do a conspiracy about him having a cancer. REALLY!!!!


As for Floyd, do you really think that he is an honest man? Do really think that if did not get caught on his doping, that he will step forward and tell the whole world that he doesn't deserve the TDF thropy because he doped.

SERIOUSLY!!!!!

WOW!!!!

[bicycletricycle]

The amount of people coming forward and speaking frankly about what they have done and what they have seen people do in the pro peleton is getting pretty interesting especially in relation to the charges of UCI corruption.

It is nice to see Floyd doing well and I am glad that he is freeing himself of the weight of his guilt and dishonesty.

It is so hard to see an end to this crap.

[daker13]

Fwiw, I like Floyd, I hate Lance.

[binxnyrwarrsoul]

some day this will all go away.

That day cannot get here soon enough.

[binxnyrwarrsoul]

"He tested positive for EPO six times in 1999. He tested positive for corticosteroids in 1999. We now know that he tested positive for EPO in 2001. His teammates have said he is doper. Team staff have said he is a doper. Other riders called him "corticoneck" in the early 90s." Andreu (and his wife) said he doped. Hamiton said he doped, Landis said he doped. Hincapie said he doped. If it walks......., talks............etc. .........

[indyrider]

"He tested positive for EPO six times in 1999. He tested positive for corticosteroids in 1999. We now know that he tested positive for EPO in 2001. His teammates have said he is doper. Team staff have said he is a doper. Other riders called him "corticoneck" in the early 90s." Andreu (and his wife) said he doped. Hamiton said he doped, Landis said he doped. Hincapie said he doped. If it walks......., talks............etc. .........


.

[malcolm]

I certainly do know, and so does anyone else with more than two connected neurons. Armstrong is a doper. He tested positive for EPO six times in 1999. He tested positive for corticosteroids in 1999. We now know that he tested positive for EPO in 2001. His teammates have said he is doper. Team staff have said he is a doper. Other riders called him "corticoneck" in the early 90s. He is a doper, and willful blindness to that fact does not make it untrue.

He continues to lie to people with cancer. That is low, really low. I can half understand Madoff. He preyed on the rich. Lots of them begged him to manage their money. Once the Ponzi scheme started, there was no way out. He had to continue so that it would not blow up. But preying on people with terminal disease and their loved ones is despicable. At any time Armstrong could bow out of limelight and kick back on a beach, but he continues to defraud people with cancer, apparently to stroke his own ego and out of sheer meanness.


We get it. It is a crying shame that people like Floyd tell the truth. Just a shame. It would be so much better if they continued to lie for Lance. How about Lance sacks up and starts telling the truth for once? How about that?


n

[Pete Serotta]

He has helped the cancer awareness and for him to fight the cancer, dropped by most teams AND then to come back and win the TOURs - that is incredible.

Is he a nice guy.......probably not by my definition. Did he do wonders for himself, USA cycling, and Cancer survival and his will to conquer it. YES in my view.

He would no more invite me to his house than I would invite him to mine BUT he was exceptional in fighting his way back to the cycling world and to the world of living.

:crap: :crap: Live and let live........ :beer: Pete

Talking about integrity while defending Armstrong. That is rich. Armstrong continues to travel the world lying to people with terminal disease while stuffing his pockets with money from his fraud. He is no different than Bernie Madoff. Even more sad are those who defend him. At least Landis decided to tell the truth. When will Armstrong do the same?

[e-RICHIE]

Is he a nice guy.......probably not by my definition. Did he do wonders for himself, USA cycling, and Cancer survival and his will to conquer it. YES in my view.


pete are you referring to (doing wonders for) cycling in the states OR for USA Cycling atmo?

ps

arrange disorder

:cool: :p ;)
:cool: :p ;)
:cool: :p :o

[Pete Serotta]

I'm no Lance fan, but I don't follow how he is defrauding poeple with cancer. Lies yes but fraud. I've seen no evidence that livestrong is run in a less than ethical manner, correct me if I'm wrong. They all dope, they always have, Lance was just the best at it and because he was the best he was in the limelight the most
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He is far from a fraud to cancer victims. - - - I was diagnosed a year ago and have most of it behind me. Today just got back from a 36 mile ride in 90s in Raleigh. Life is good and moving forward.

Lance is a polarizing person but I see alot of success and contribution from him. He will never be a smoozer but he fought and won on many items


PETE

[Pete Serotta]

pete are you referring to (doing wonders for) cycling in the states OR for USA Cycling atmo?

ps

arrange disorder

:cool: :p ;)
:cool: :p ;)
:cool: :p :o

More for sport awareness in the USA. I do not know about teams in USA but folks thought more about riding a bike because he was getting so much "air" time. That is what I meant as good for cycling. THis year will give it a test from a dealer point of view (and even TREK)

[djg]

I certainly do know, and so does anyone else with more than two connected neurons. Armstrong is a doper. He tested positive for EPO six times in 1999. He tested positive for corticosteroids in 1999. We now know that he tested positive for EPO in 2001. His teammates have said he is doper. Team staff have said he is a doper. Other riders called him "corticoneck" in the early 90s. He is a doper, and willful blindness to that fact does not make it untrue.

He continues to lie to people with cancer. That is low, really low. I can half understand Madoff. He preyed on the rich. Lots of them begged him to manage their money. Once the Ponzi scheme started, there was no way out. He had to continue so that it would not blow up. But preying on people with terminal disease and their loved ones is despicable. At any time Armstrong could bow out of limelight and kick back on a beach, but he continues to defraud people with cancer, apparently to stroke his own ego and out of sheer meanness.


We get it. It is a crying shame that people like Floyd tell the truth. Just a shame. It would be so much better if they continued to lie for Lance. How about Lance sacks up and starts telling the truth for once? How about that?

Jeeze, I'm puzzled by almost all of this, without wishing to offer an apology for, or defense of, anybody in particular. Is it possible to enter this discussion by taking off the table the question whether there are good reasons to believe that LA took PEDs during his career? I think there are, but leaving them aside, I'm puzzled by your assertions of the things we "know" -- most of which are not so clear -- seems to me that the various reported test results are all pretty problematic at the level of public knowledge, and not really the whole or best of the evidence, if one were collecting evidence.

The story about Madoff? Feh. He's a shondeh, not least because he's a liar and a thief, and he sure as heck was no Robin Hood, whatever the heck you might think about the Robin Hood story.

LA "preying on people" with cancer? Sheesh. There are many, many regards in which I would NOT hold this fella up as a role model for my kids, but this seems to me to be the kind of out-there statement we get when folks have given up being pissed or disappointed and have decided to party crazy on the haters' bus.

But the bit about Floyd telling the truth? Really? I'm guessing that many bits of what he says are true, many are warped, and many are just part of what he has concocted, and is concocting. I've given up watching because it's sad and crazy, on top of maddening, and because it seems so damn plain that it is something other than a straight and sober confession. I cannot pull the stuff apart. What strikes me as strangest of all, in all the Floyd-related discussions, is that seemingly sober people with no stake in the game don't see the mess or the tangle.

[Lifelover]

pete are you referring to (doing wonders for) cycling in the states OR for USA Cycling atmo?

ps

arrange disorder

:cool: :p ;)
:cool: :p ;)
:cool: :p :o


Lance's impact on cycling in the states is pretty easily measured.

Just compare your wait list before Lance to your wait list the last year he rode the tour.

[e-RICHIE]

Lance's impact on cycling in the states is pretty easily measured.

Just compare your wait list before Lance to your wait list the last year he rode the tour.

you've laid this one out here before. i never talk about my wait list in public but i'll make this exception;
it grew after i turned 50 years old. maybe turning 50 years old is why my wait list grew. sheesh atmo.

ps

arrange disorder

:D :D :D
:o :o :o
:p ;) :cool:

[Fixed]

I'm no Lance fan, but I don't follow how he is defrauding poeple with cancer. Lies yes but fraud. I've seen no evidence that livestrong is run in a less than ethical manner, correct me if I'm wrong. They all dope, they always have, Lance was just the best at it and because he was the best he was in the limelight the most
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He is far from a fraud to cancer victims. - - - I was diagnosed a year ago and have most of it behind me. Today just got back from a 36 mile ride in 90s in Raleigh. Life is good and moving forward.

Lance is a polarizing person but I see alot of success and contribution from him. He will never be a smoozer but he fought and won on many items


PETE
well said imho +1
cheers

[djg]

you've laid this one out here before. i never talk about my wait list in public but i'll make this exception;
it grew after i turned 50 years old. maybe turning 50 years old is why my wait list grew. sheesh atmo.

ps

arrange disorder

:D :D :D
:o :o :o
:p ;) :cool:

I think that's probably it. Wait lists. Ear hair. It's a slippery slope my friend.

I'm inclined to think that you paid your dues, honed your craft, and built your rep, such that you were standing somewhere around the front of the world's queue right around the time the number of folks who wanted a certain type of bike done a certain way spiked a bit. Which would be a mix of hard work, perseverance, acquired skill, and luck. One doesn't have to triple the number of people who want road bikes (or really good road bikes, or really good made-to-measure road bikes with steel frames) to put some serious stretch to the wait lists of a handful of highly sought-after builders. But I'm guessing.

[Pete Serotta]

I messed up your note and even put some of it on my note.

Please accept my apology....There was nothing about your note that was bad. In fact I copied some and messed up your note when I was doing it.


PETE

[malcolm]

Pete absolutely not a problem.
You are the bestest

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . we should just refrain from any kind of rush to judgment about any of this for a couple of more months until it all comes out in court? :crap:

The only certain thing I know about any of this is that I would probably not invite Lance over for a beer. But that's me. You might love to have him come over, share a shiner bock, and hit on your wife or sister behind your back. :rolleyes:

I have seen no evidence anywhere that he is lying about anything to cancer victims. IF the court proceedings that are sure to come prove to an acceptable legal standard that he DID dope--and that his 7 TdF wins can reasonably be inferred to be fraudulently obtained, not to mention his fame, endorsement deals, etc.--THEN I guess it could be inferred also that he lied to cancer victims.

Of course, this would also be assuming that for many of them their admiration of him is due to their belief that he defeated cancer and won the races because he is one bad-ass saintly dude. But until that day comes I'm not gonna worry.

I'm also at a loss to see what any of this has to do with Richie's wait list . . . ;)

BBD

[djg]

. . .
The only certain thing I know about any of this is that I would probably not invite Lance over for a beer. But that's me.
BBD

I'm with ya Dave. In fact, I've sworn off inviting celebrities over for a beer entirely. First of all they don't respond to invitations so you don't know if they're coming. And if they show up, half the time there's some freaking entourage in tow. And they always . . . I mean, always, arrive empty handed. Would it kill them to tell the limo to pull over at the Sev and send one of the hangers-on in for a six? Lance. Prince. Prince Charles. Stephen Hawking. Catherine Deneuve. All the same. Eff 'em I say.

[Elefantino]

You might love to have him come over, share a shiner bock, and hit on your wife or sister behind your back.
Unless your wife or sister looks like his mom, probably not going to happen.

[soulspinner]

QUOTE=Elefantino]Unless your wife or sister looks like his mom, probably not going to happen.[/QUOTE]


:p

[54ny77]

When you hit 65, don't forget to ask your materials suppliers for the special AARP discount. :banana:

you've laid this one out here before. i never talk about my wait list in public but i'll make this exception;
it grew after i turned 50 years old. maybe turning 50 years old is why my wait list grew. sheesh atmo.

ps

arrange disorder

:D :D :D
:o :o :o
:p ;) :cool:

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . is available after age 50. They started sending me membership come-ons the moment I hit 48! . . . uh, "atmo." :crap: :D

BBD

[CunegoFan]

I'm no Lance fan, but I don't follow how he is defrauding poeple with cancer. Lies yes but fraud. I've seen no evidence that livestrong is run in a less than ethical manner, correct me if I'm wrong. They all dope, they always have, Lance was just the best at it and because he was the best he was in the limelight the most

Armstrong does not have to embezzle money from Livestrong to exploit his charity. People are suckered into promoting the Armstrong brand, and that is how he makes most of his money. How much less money would he have made if from the start he had been honest and said that his cancer was detected at such a late stage because he was taking steroid masking agents that prevented tumor markers from showing up on standard drug tests and after he recovered, he cheated his way to winning the Tour de France? He would have made a fraction of the money he eventually made.

Even that was not good enough for him. How many charities have a for-profit .com site so the founder can make money from the charity's name? I cannot think of one other than Livestrong. Armstrong sold the livestrong.com name to Demand Media for 1.0625 million warrants with a strike price of $6. Livestrong got 1.25M. Curiously, Armstrong's long-time cronies, Bill Stapleton and Bart Knaggs, walked away with 187.5K warrants. While people with flexible ethics might justify Armstrong making money from his charity, how does one justify the management of Capital Sports Entertainment enriching themselves with the sale of Livestrong.com? At the projected IPO price, Stapleton and Knaggs expected more than two million dollars in profit.

While Livestrong got nothing other than the warrants, which at the time might not have been worth anything if Demand Media never went public, Armstrong received a million dollar a year contract from Demand to promote Livestrong.com in addition to his warrants, money that would be paid whether Demand went public or not. Essentially millions of people thought they were buying yellow bracelets to promote cancer awareness, but what they were really buying was bracelets to promote the Livestrong brand that Armstrong intended to sell.

It is also interesting that the amount of internet traffic to the .org site has remained pretty much constant while the traffic to the .com site has exploded. You would think that there would be some crossover, that an increase in the .com traffic would spill over to the .org, thus benefitting the charity. But that has not happened. It is not an accident that the internet content for Armstrong's return was put on the .com site instead of the .org. Even now the official team Radio Shack site is hosted on livestrong.com. You would think that someone who returned to fight cancer could actually promote his charity's website instead of the for-profit site. I guess when you are being paid a mil a year to do otherwise, a brother's gotta go what a brother's gotta do.

Travel expenses for Livestrong are out of sight, $1.923M in 2009. In contrast the National Cancer Coalition spent $108K on travel, and it raises five times as much money as Livestrong. So Livestrong spent nearly 100 times as much on travel per dollar raised. Purely by coincidence I am sure, the private jet that is used by Livestrong is leased from Armstrong's for-profit jet leasing company, Mellow Johnny's Aviation.

Remember all those FRS ads on the internet? The company has three directors of Demand Media, including Demand's founder, as its own directors. During that time there was a deal between FRS and Demand Media to advertise on livestrong.com. A company that was partially owned by Armstrong used Livestrong to market its junk supplements.

Armstrong and his cronies have thought of every angle they can to use the charity to enrich themselves. That just does not smell right.

The video interview linked to in the OP provides interesting insight into Armstrong's way of thinking. There is a "full" interview that is about an hour, but that is edited from the larger amount of material in the individual segments. The segments contain a lot of detail. In one Landis talks about Chris Carmichael. Carmichael did not simply pose as Armstrong's coach to hide Armstrong's relationship with Dr. Ferrari. From the beginning it was about setting up a coaching service that was owned in part by Armstrong. Landis talks about how when he was training with Armstrong, Carmichael would post the workouts on the internet. But what was being posted was a complete fabrication that bore no resemblance to what Armstrong was actually doing. Landis knew because he was doing the exact same workouts as Armstrong, side by side with him. I think that says a lot about how Armstrong views manipulation of the rubes in order to make money.

[gdw]

Interesting...can you supply some links to support your post?

[e-RICHIE]

Even that was not good enough for him. How many charities have a for-profit .com site so the founder can make money from the charity's name? I cannot think of one other than Livestrong.


that's a good point atmo.

ps

arrange disorder

:D :D :D
:o :o :o
;) :p :cool:

[toaster]

CunegoFan, can you give us some idea how you learned so much about Livestrong.com?

It sounds all so likely given the history of this man.

[fuzzalow]

Agree with much of the assertions made in CunegoFan's post.

IMO Lance has always used cancer as a emotional lever to create and foster a positive image for himself and by extension, his business endeavors. It would seem a repugnant business strategy to devise and deploy but it is unceasingly effective. No greater scoundrel than to to conflate Lance Inc to the hopes of many stranger's gallant struggles to overcome illness.

For those who doubt, as always - follow the money.

[gdw]

Being an old fart I tend to question quite a bit of the information presented as fact which appears on internet forums. Please provide some links to back up your accusations.

[CunegoFan]

Interesting...can you supply some links to support your post?

The information was dug out of publicly available documents by people on other cycling forums. Livestrong's combined audit reports contain the amounts spent on travel. They also list the $9,4M spent in 2009 on "legal and professional" as opposed the $5.95M spent on "grants and awards". They contain all sorts of interesting info, like travel expenditures went up seven hundred thousand dollars (if memory serves me correctly) when Armstrong came out of retirement

Demand Media's SEC filings for its IPO contain information about the livestrong.com acquisition, which is a perpetual license; Livestrong gets nothing in the future other than the initial warrants. It lists the revenue that came from adverstising FRS as well as which directors sit on the two companies' boards.

You do have to love this nugget from Demand's S-1.

In April 2006, we sold shares of our Series A preferred stock to certain investors, after which sale Thomas W. Weisel, an individual affiliated with Stifel Nicolaus Weisel, a co-manager for this offering, held less than 1% of the outstanding shares of our capital stock on an as converted, fully diluted basis. Mr. Weisel is also a party to our Stockholders' Agreement.

Good ol' Thom Weisel, long time patron of Armstrong and ruler of USA Cycling.

EDIT: If you want to skim through one of the discussions about the blurring of the lines between the .org and the .com, you can plow through this link. http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=11579&highlight=demand+media&page=9 Post #90 is a good start. The whole thread is 59 pages long.

[e-RICHIE]

Good ol' Thom Weisel, long time patron of Armstrong and ruler of USA Cycling.

required reading atmo -
http://outside.away.com/outside/features/200606/champions-club-1.html

ps

arrange disorder

:o :o :o
:o :o :o
:o :p ;)

[Lifelover]

The information was dug out of publicly available documents by people on other cycling forums. Livestrong's combined audit reports contain the amounts spent on travel. They also list the $9,4M spent in 2009 on "legal and professional" as opposed the $5.95M spent on "grants and awards". They contain all sorts of interesting info, like travel expenditures went up seven hundred thousand dollars (if memory serves me correctly) when Armstrong came out of retirement

Demand Media's SEC filings for its IPO contain information about the livestrong.com acquisition, which is a perpetual license; Livestrong gets nothing in the future other than the initial warrants. It lists the revenue that came from adverstising FRS as well as which directors sit on the two companies' boards.

You do have to love this nugget from Demand's S-1.

In April 2006, we sold shares of our Series A preferred stock to certain investors, after which sale Thomas W. Weisel, an individual affiliated with Stifel Nicolaus Weisel, a co-manager for this offering, held less than 1% of the outstanding shares of our capital stock on an as converted, fully diluted basis. Mr. Weisel is also a party to our Stockholders' Agreement.

Good ol' Thom Weisel, long time patron of Armstrong and ruler of USA Cycling.

EDIT: If you want to skim through one of the discussions about the blurring of the lines between the .org and the .com, you can plow through this link. http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=11579&highlight=demand+media&page=9 Post #90 is a good start. The whole thread is 59 pages long.

That house of cards should be tumbling down any day now!

[chuckroast]

I'm with ya Dave. In fact, I've sworn off inviting celebrities over for a beer entirely. First of all they don't respond to invitations so you don't know if they're coming. And if they show up, half the time there's some freaking entourage in tow. And they always . . . I mean, always, arrive empty handed. Would it kill them to tell the limo to pull over at the Sev and send one of the hangers-on in for a six? Lance. Prince. Prince Charles. Stephen Hawking. Catherine Deneuve. All the same. Eff 'em I say.

If Catherine Deneuve comes by, she doesn't have to bring a sixer. Just saying....

[Rueda Tropical]

It never occurred to me (until it was pointed out on some thread) that there where 2 Livestrongs. One a charitable foundation and the other a profit making business. I'm sure most people who visit Livestrong don't make the distinction either. They just think Livestrong is the organization that fights cancer and the web site does absolutely nothing to dispel that misconception.

You don't need access to any documents to see that, just visit the .com site. I'd say that's really sleazy without having to know who benefits by how much. Who leverages off the brand and name of a charity to launch a money making business?

[toaster]

If, not when, you purchase Livestrong merchandise is there some information about what percentage of the proceeds go to Livestrong organization or Lance Armstrong Foundation?

[norcalbiker]

I'm no Lance fan, but I don't follow how he is defrauding poeple with cancer. Lies yes but fraud. I've seen no evidence that livestrong is run in a less than ethical manner, correct me if I'm wrong. They all dope, they always have, Lance was just the best at it and because he was the best he was in the limelight the most
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He is far from a fraud to cancer victims. - - - I was diagnosed a year ago and have most of it behind me. Today just got back from a 36 mile ride in 90s in Raleigh. Life is good and moving forward.

Lance is a polarizing person but I see alot of success and contribution from him. He will never be a smoozer but he fought and won on many items


PETE

AMEN!!!

[schneiderrd]

I think the trashing of Armstrong for having two web sites is a little over the top. I checked out Livestrong.com and it quite clearly says that it is a healthy living website. It does have a very identifiable link to the Livestrong.org which is identified as the charitable organization or website. I could not find anything that it gave me the impression that it was a charitable site. This website is more like Dr. Oz website and I am sure he is not "giving it away". I don't see anything wrong with Armstrong setting up a website to make money; After all, he did retire from his day job. I can understand that there may be a lot of things about Armstrong that rub people the wrong way, but going over the top about his "for profit website" is so thin it is anorexic.

[djg]

...

Even that was not good enough for him. How many charities have a for-profit .com site so the founder can make money from the charity's name? I cannot think of one other than Livestrong. ...



Er . . . so lots of 501(c)(3) orgs have businesses on the side or have one or another type of affiliation with a for-profit business (income may be taxed one way or another depending on the particulars -- one can hire a tax lawyer if one wants to know the details, but I'm not that guy). How many? I don't know.

I kinda doubt that LA designed the web site, or wrote even a line of code, but ok, he's connected, certainly -- be that as it may, having just spent my first three minutes over there, it doesn't look to me like something designed to fool people into thinking that it's the charity itself. I mean there's this via "about" tag:

"LIVESTRONG.COM vs LIVESTRONG.ORG?

The Lance Armstrong Foundation will continue to support cancer survivorship and call on our nation's leaders to wage a new war against cancer through LIVESTRONG.ORG. LIVESTRONG.COM is a practical resource to find a wealth of health-related information from a wide range of sources, and is a proactive way to have a daily conversation about being healthy and living an active lifestyle.

While LIVESTRONG.ORG remains a nonprofit, LIVESTRONG.COM is a for-profit that derives its revenue from advertising and member subscriptions."

I don't patronize the web site and I doubt I'll be back, but it seems clear enough to me. That's me of course. There's an empirical question whether significant numbers of folks are duped in some way. Are you arguing that some folks looking for the foundation will stumble upon the for-profit site first, upping the hit numbers, and hence the ad revenue? I mean, maybe, but I'm guessing that's mostly keyed on click-through rather than accidental hits to the home page. That seems thin. With everything else on the table, I don't see the scandal here.

[Rueda Tropical]

I don't have a problem with la using his charitable work to burnish his brand. It's a major reason businesses engage in charity. But using the charities name to make money for yourself when you have plenty of ways to make
Illions already, that may not be a "scandal" but it's sleazy to the extreme.

[JMerring]

it was very telling (to me at least) when his stated reason for returning was to promote cancer awareness but other than nike's chalkbot, i didn't see any evidence of that. maybe there just wasn't enough time given the negotiations with radioshack and the announcement of the new team on the day of that year's finall itt. i've always maintained that his charitable endeavors were self-serving to the nth degree. gotta promote the brand any which way you can, i guess.

[flydhest]

I'm with ya Dave. In fact, I've sworn off inviting celebrities over for a beer entirely. First of all they don't respond to invitations so you don't know if they're coming. And if they show up, half the time there's some freaking entourage in tow. And they always . . . I mean, always, arrive empty handed. Would it kill them to tell the limo to pull over at the Sev and send one of the hangers-on in for a six? Lance. Prince. Prince Charles. Stephen Hawking. Catherine Deneuve. All the same. Eff 'em I say.


. . . did I mention that I heart djg?