# Armstrong Continues to Compete



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Armstrong is out there terrorizing clean athletes again. I'm not sure how he slipped past USADA--maybe Betsy Andreu was on vacation--but the good news is that he was forced to drop out without even finishing half of the race: 

_“He drank Budweiser heavy from a 12 ounce can, no widemouth, following strict international beer mile standards," said Patrick Hitchens, who completed the beer mile in 6:08. "Perhaps his days with Michelob Ultra Lite put him at a disadvantage. He’s probably on his way to a gas station getting some Budweisers right now and practicing his chugging. He’s a competitor. I hope to see him out there again.”_
VIDEO.
Armstrong’s attempt was short-lived because after he chugged a beer, ran one lap well behind the leaders, and grabbed another beer, he dropped out. He was heard saying in the video, “That was not what I expected.”


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

Local Hero said:


> I feel like we're close here. Two or three more threads on this and we'll finally all come to agreement.


and 5 char


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Bluenote said:


> and 5 char


Good memes. 

Any thoughts on the fact that Armstrong has been reduced to racing (unsuccessfully) beer miles?

Are we happy that he's got nothing better to do? Or unhappy that it is making the news?


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

Love the beer mile concept. Like Lance there's no way I'd ever do it, but mad respect for guys running 6 minute miles chugging a beer every lap. I'd be foaming at the mouth after lap 2 and throwing up all over the track.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

Local Hero said:


> Good memes.
> 
> Any thoughts on the fact that Armstrong has been reduced to racing (unsuccessfully) beer miles?
> 
> Are we happy that he's got nothing better to do? Or unhappy that it is making the news?


Not a meme. Sorry you weren't able to understand your own quote. I'll spell it out for you... 

if the 'Armstrong, what is he reduced to' issue were a horse it would have been:
-put out to pasture
- then shot
-and beaten while dead
-then beaten some more
-subsequently beaten a bit more, just for good measure
-sent to the glue factory

If you are curious as to what people feel that Armstrong has been "reduced" to racing little local fun events, you could just browse the forum and read some of these threads.

Armstrong can't go to swim meets!
http://forums.roadbikereview.com/doping-forum/lance-goes-swimming-303073.html
http://forums.roadbikereview.com/doping-forum/would-you-swim-against-lance-armstrong-303080.html

Armstrong says he really won those races!
http://forums.roadbikereview.com/do...lounging-under-his-yellow-jerseys-295465.html

Armstrong isn't wanted at the TdF!
http://forums.roadbikereview.com/do...invited-unwanted-guest-100th-tour-307685.html

Armstrong rides non-competitive, unsanctioned event!
http://forums.roadbikereview.com/doping-forum/armstrong-out-win-ragbrai-308108.html

Armstrong gives up Olympic Medal!
http://forums.roadbikereview.com/doping-forum/herd-lancestrong-gave-back-his-bronze-311745.html

Armstrong falls, hard!
http://forums.roadbikereview.com/doping-forum/post-oprah-315415.html
http://forums.roadbikereview.com/doping-forum/lance-armstrong-purgatory-327181.html

Armstrong talks about falling!
http://forums.roadbikereview.com/doping-forum/armstrongs-latest-interview-307714.html

Other people talk about Armstrong falling!
http://forums.roadbikereview.com/doping-forum/armstrong-lie-trailer-312833.html

Other people are screwed by Armstrong falling, too!
http://forums.roadbikereview.com/doping-forum/nike-drops-livestrong-306029.html
http://forums.roadbikereview.com/doping-forum/radioshack-ends-sponsorship-302207.html
NO JOKE: Lance on Oprah next week. - Page 7

And my personal favorite, Armstrong ruined everything!!
http://forums.roadbikereview.com/doping-forum/lance-armstrong-ruined-everything-307123.html

I think there is enough material out there to size up what people think of Armstrong's exile. I think you're onto something there about not really needing another thread on the topic. I don't think we really need another thread every time Armstrong farts, or generally acts like the D list celebrity he now is. 

I still find a few things about 'the Armstrong affair' and it's fall out interesting, however. Mostly because they aren't just about Armstrong, but about how doping gets handled / talked about in the future:

Will even more (alleged) corruption be uncovered at the UCI?
Will there be meaningful change at USA Cycling?
What will happen with the SCA case (a ruling is said to be due soon)?
What will happen with the Qui Tam case? 
What did he tell the Truth and Reconciliation committee?
Will Armstrong ever confirm 'the Hospital Room Incident?'


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

I was referring to the "5 char" meme


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

Local Hero said:


> I was referring to the "5 char" meme


You'll have to take that up with the hamsters...


----------



## rufus (Feb 3, 2004)

DrSmile said:


> Love the beer mile concept. Like Lance there's no way I'd ever do it, but mad respect for guys running 6 minute miles chugging a beer every lap. I'd be foaming at the mouth after lap 2 and throwing up all over the track.


We had something like this back in college. There were something like 15 fraternity houses along frat row, somewhere around a mile distance. The object was to run the distance, drinking a beer at each house. I think the administration quickly put a stop to this event.


----------



## Big-foot (Dec 14, 2002)

*BREAKING NEWS!*
ARMSTONG TRAINING FOR MARIBONG SERIES
After logging a DNF in a disappointing first encounter with the “Beer Mile,” disgraced cyclist Lance Armstrong has now set his sights on the about to be launched “Maribong Series,” a trio of 26.2 mile marathon running races scheduled for 2015 in Seattle, Washington; Boulder, Colorado and Humboldt County, California. These events differ from traditional marathons in that at each mile marker participants must stop momentarily to smoke a “bowl” of locally-produced marijuana through a type of water-filled smoking pipe commonly referred to as a “bong.”

In an interview with High Times Magazine Armstrong opined that lung-capacity and tolerance for THC (Tetrahydrocannabinol) will be key to success in these events. He also mentioned that he has begun a strictly regimented training schedule to prepare himself for the upcoming season and even revealed his planned strategy he’ll use in these contests, “As with any race it’s all about motivation and focus,” he said, “So at the finish I’ll have one of my people waiting for me with a tray of fresh out-of-the-oven chocolate-chip & macadamia cookies.” When asked if revealing this strategy might negate any advantage it would provide over his competitors Armstrong rolled his eyes and said, “What, like they’ll remember?”









__________________


----------



## Horze (Mar 12, 2013)

Continues, amen.
Still better than obese people who fail to lift off the sofa.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

and Lance personally bailed out the failed US Nats of CX in Austin.
Even offered some of his vacant rentals to house racers.

So he is no longer the biggest douche in Austin


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

atpjunkie said:


> and Lance personally bailed out the failed US Nats of CX in Austin.


Nonsense.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

atpjunkie said:


> and Lance personally bailed out the failed US Nats of CX in Austin.
> Even offered some of his vacant rentals to house racers.
> 
> So he is no longer the biggest douche in Austin


That was nice of him.

Even if Lance personally funded the research that came up with a cure for cancer, people would still find him a douche. Haters gonna hate.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

love4himies said:


> That was nice of him.
> 
> Even if Lance personally funded the research that came up with a cure for cancer, people would still find him a douche. Haters gonna hate.


Lance did not bail out the CX championships just like he did not raise $400 million for cancer research.

groupies and their myths:idea:


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Lance did not bail out the CX championships just like he did not raise $400 million for cancer research.
> 
> groupies and their myths:idea:


No idea if he raised 1 penny for research when he was at Livestrong, but I didn't state anything about how much he raised during his tenure there so not sure why you are raising that point. 

BUT by all indications that I've read, he did help save the Nationals, so if you have different info please post a link to show that atpjunkie and I got inaccurate info.


----------



## CrankyCarbon (Dec 17, 2014)

I thought Armstrong's next big sport is golf ?


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

love4himies said:


> BUT by all indications that I've read, he did help save the Nationals, so if you have different info please post a link to show that atpjunkie and I got inaccurate info.


why? haters gonna hate


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

love4himies said:


> BUT by all indications that I've read, he did help save the Nationals, so if you have different info please post a link to show that atpjunkie and I got inaccurate info.


Please share with us a link that shows Lance saved the Nationals.

He called up the parks department, was told they were already working on a alternative solution. He did nothing but try to insert himself into a discussion that was already happening. 

It was nice of him to put some folks up at his house but that was it.


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> ...just like he did not raise $400 million for cancer research.


I have to profess I thought this was true. Are you saying he didn't do this because Livestrong is not Armstrong? I think Livestrong clearly raised that much, at least it did according to Wiki. Separating Livestrong from Armstrong seems kind of arbitrary to me.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

DrSmile said:


> I have to profess I thought this was true. Are you saying he didn't do this because Livestrong is not Armstrong? I think Livestrong clearly raised that much, at least it did according to Wiki. Separating Livestrong from Armstrong seems kind of arbitrary to me.


Livestrong raised $400 million, but they did not spend it on research. They spent it on $6,000,000 parties, lobbying to defund USADA, promoting the Armstrong myth, and lots of travel.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

DrSmile said:


> I have to profess I thought this was true. Are you saying he didn't do this because Livestrong is not Armstrong? I think Livestrong clearly raised that much, at least it did according to Wiki. Separating Livestrong from Armstrong seems kind of arbitrary to me.


You thought it was true because the Armstrong/Livestrong machine did everything they could to obfuscate the issue. Except for a few small grants early in the life of the foundation, Livestrong did nothing to promote or fund cancer research. Their stated mission was to raise awareness for those with the disease.


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

I think this is sadly a general problem with nonprofits. There was a report a while back that showed many nonprofits spend more than 50% of donations on themselves. I think the state lotteries function on similar dubious financials.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

love4himies said:


> BUT by all indications that I've read, he did *help save the Nationals*, so if you have different info please post a link to show that atpjunkie and I got inaccurate info.





Doctor Falsetti said:


> Please share with us a link that shows Lance saved the Nationals.
> 
> He called up the parks department, was told they were already working on a alternative solution. He did nothing but try to insert himself into a discussion that was already happening.
> 
> It was nice of him to put some folks up at his house but that was it.


So you want to play "Show me yours then I'll show you mine" game.

I take it you don't mean where he helped those with accommodations so they could continue (which yes, helped save the Nationals for some participants) and without participants you don't have a competition.

2015 USA Cyclocross Nationals Postponed | Bicycling



> Even Austin native Lance Armstrong, who was spotted at several parties this week and around the course, took to Twitter Sunday morning. "Just off the phone with Austin City Parks head Sara Hensley. Both the city and USA Cycling working towards a solution for #CXNats2015," he wrote.


A call from to put some pressure on bureaucrats from a well known celebrity is a way to help save an event. 

Tag, you're it. Show me yours.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Didn't you learn from the last time he neg rep'd you?


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

I thought USADA banned Armstrong from making phone calls and pulling strings.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

spade2you said:


> Didn't you learn from the last time he neg rep'd you?


:lol: You would think I would have


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

I know someone who is alive today because Livestrong gave her a $25,000 grant to pursue an experimental treatment that her health insurance wouldn't cover.

I don't really give a s*** about his motives in founding it. Or that they waste a lot of money on self-promotion (many charities are no better). It has helped people beyond "raising awareness".


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

love4himies said:


> So you want to play "Show me yours then I'll show you mine" game.
> 
> I take it you don't mean where he helped those with accommodations so they could continue (which yes, helped save the Nationals for some participants) and without participants you don't have a competition.
> 
> ...


Thanks for proving my point. There is zero in that article that indicates that Armstrong saved nationals

USA cycling and the Parks department were already deep in discussions about a solution. By the time Armstrong called they had already figured one out, which is what they told him. 

Instead of inventing a myth that Armstrong saved nationals it would be better to give credit to the actual folks who figured out a solution and worked their ass off to redesign the course. Mica Rice, Pete Webber, and Matt Shriver


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

mpre53 said:


> I know someone who is alive today because Livestrong gave her a $25,000 grant to pursue an experimental treatment that her health insurance wouldn't cover.
> 
> I don't really give a s*** about his motives in founding it. Or that they waste a lot of money on self-promotion (many charities are no better). It has helped people beyond "raising awareness".


You may be fine with Livestrong wasting hundreds of millions of dollars on parties and promoting a myth but don't expect everyone to share that opinion. Every dollar wasted by Livestrong on lobbying to defund USADA, $6,000,000 parties, and advertising that promoted the Armstrong myth is a dollar that could have been used for cancer.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You may be fine with Livestrong wasting hundreds of millions of dollars on parties and promoting a myth but don't expect everyone to share that opinion. Every dollar wasted by Livestrong on lobbying to defund USADA, $6,000,000 parties, and advertising that promoted the Armstrong myth is a dollar that could have been used for cancer.


Or you are naive to think that other charities don't schmooze with the donors' bucks in order to catch some bigger fish. If they did it more than what's regulated (if it's regulated), then it is up to the auditors to report and the authorities to act appropriately upon that.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Thanks for proving my point. There is zero in that article that indicates that Armstrong saved nationals
> 
> USA cycling and the Parks department were already deep in discussions about a solution. By the time Armstrong called they had already figured one out, which is what they told him.
> 
> Instead of inventing a myth that Armstrong saved nationals it would be better to give credit to the actual folks who figured out a solution and worked their ass off to redesign the course. Mica Rice, Pete Webber, and Matt Shriver


Play fair, I showed you mine, now show me yours. Where's your proof? Link? Otherwise, I'll be the eternal optimist that his phone call did help.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

love4himies said:


> Or you are naive to think that other charities don't schmooze with the donors' bucks in order to catch some bigger fish. If they did it more than what's regulated (if it's regulated), then it is up to the auditors to report and the authorities to act appropriately upon that.


Please name another charity that spent money to lobbied lawmakers to defund USADA. 

While you are at it let us know what charities the size of Livestrong burn so much money on travel. The 2009 travel expenses for Livestrong total almost $2 million ($1,922,995). For comparison, the National Cancer Coalition,* with 5 times as much money raised,* only claimed $108,559 in travel expenses


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

love4himies said:


> Play fair, I showed you mine, now show me yours. Where's your proof? Link? Otherwise, I'll be the eternal optimist that his phone call did help.


Proof of what? You are who made the claim that Armstrong saved nationals. You have presented nothing to support that claim. 

USA cycling was already telling people at the park that the event was postponed, not canceled. 3 hours prior to Armstrong's call, and subsequent tweet, USA cycling had already made it clear they were working on a solution 




> Again we apologize for the inconvenience at #cxnats. We are still working with the City of Austin to explore and exhaust all options.





> (Pt 3/3) diligently with the City of Austin to make this happen. Please track USA cycling social media for further updates. @AustinCX15





> USA Cycling @usacycling · Jan 11
> (Pt 2/3) our power to make sure these races go today. It is our number one priority to run this event for our riders, and we are working...





> USA Cycling @usacycling · Jan 11
> (Pt 1/3) In light of last night's weather, the city of Austin has postponed today's races until further notice. We are doing everything in..





> USA Cycling @usacycling · Jan 11
> @_amanda_panda_ we continue to seek options. These are what the city gave us & feel are our best options right now. Stay tuned for updates.


Armstrong went on Twitter to insert himself into the discussion 35 minutes after a press conference had already been announced 


> LIVE in 15 mins for #CXNats updates. Will have official comments from @usacycling & others. 11:00 press conference BTB TV - USA Cycling Cyclo-cross National Championships presented live by SRAM


Nobody involved with the race has said that Armstrong saved Nationals. Nobody. It is clear that by the time he called a solution was already being finalized


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Please name another charity that spent money to lobbied lawmakers to defund USADA.
> 
> While you are at it let us know what charities the size of Livestrong burn so much money on travel. The 2009 travel expenses for Livestrong total almost $2 million ($1,922,995). For comparison, the National Cancer Coalition,* with 5 times as much money raised,* only claimed $108,559 in travel expenses


I am not the only person who questions it. Here is the take of two accounting Professors. 

FraudBytes: Lance Armstrong Investigation: LiveStrong Brought to Light



> Donors should ask if the foundation is a way to build power and wealth or a way to fight cancer.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Proof of what? You are who made the claim that Armstrong saved nationals. You have presented nothing to support that claim.
> 
> USA cycling was already telling people at the park that the event was postponed, not canceled. 3 hours prior to Armstrong's call, and subsequent tweet, USA cycling had already made it clear they were working on a solution
> 
> ...


I never said he "saved" I stated by what I read he "helped save" them and if you had proof otherwise to post it. You then told me to post my proof. I did post what I read and what I based my opinion on. If you had different proof, you should just post it rather than calling people Lance apologists.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

love4himies said:


> I never said he "saved" I stated by what I read he "helped save" them and if you had proof otherwise to post it. You then told me to post my proof. I did post what I read and what I based my opinion on. If you had different proof, you should just post it rather than calling people Lance apologists.


Here I'll even make it easy on you by quoting my post:




love4himies said:


> No idea if he raised 1 penny for research when he was at Livestrong, but I didn't state anything about how much he raised during his tenure there so not sure why you are raising that point.
> 
> BUT by all indications that I've read, he did help save the Nationals, so if you have different info please post a link to show that atpjunkie and I got inaccurate info.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

Local Hero said:


> I thought USADA banned Armstrong from making phone calls and pulling strings.


:lol::lol::lol:


----------



## CoffeeBean2 (Aug 6, 2005)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Please name another charity that spent money to lobbied lawmakers to defund USADA.
> 
> While you are at it let us know what charities the size of Livestrong burn so much money on travel. The 2009 travel expenses for Livestrong total almost $2 million ($1,922,995). For comparison, the National Cancer Coalition,* with 5 times as much money raised,* only claimed $108,559 in travel expenses


Charities lobby lawmakers all the time. You're splitting hairs by expressly calling out the defunding USADA. Also, nice cherry-picking by comparing Livestrong to the National Cancer Coalition. Why didn't you use the American Cancer Society or all cancer-related charities to see how Livestrong stacks up? But, hey, I'll play. For FYE 08/2012, the American Cancer Society raised $924,453,841. They had $985,776,801 in expenses. That's a negative balance sheet. But, damn, Livestrong was the absolute worst.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

love4himies said:


> I never said he "saved" I stated by what I read he "helped save" them and if you had proof otherwise to post it. You then told me to post my proof. I did post what I read and what I based my opinion on. If you had different proof, you should just post it rather than calling people Lance apologists.


I already posted it http://forums.roadbikereview.com/doping-forum/armstrong-continues-compete-342705-2.html#post4786508

I will make it very simple for you as it appears reading is not your thing. All morning long USA cycling was on Twitter saying they were working on a solution with the parks department. Finally they announced a press conference to explain the solution they had been working all morning on

30 minutes *after* the press conference was announced, and 3 hours *after* USA cycling said they were working on a solution Lance goes on Twitter to say



> *Just off the phone* with @ausrincityparks head Sara Hensley. Both the city and @usacycling working towards a solution for #CXNats2015


Armstrong called the parks department *After *they had already worked out a solution with USA cycling

pretty simple


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

Even Velonews is perpetuating the myth:

Commentary: A nationals disaster - VeloNews.com



> At 11:00 a.m., following negotiations with USA Cycling, pressure from City of Austin officials, pressure from fans, racers, and teams — even pressure from Austin local Lance Armstrong — an agreement was announced: The races would go on, but on Monday, on a revised course, a course that averted the tree’s apparently delicate root zones.


They may have an e-mail address you can contact them so they can make a correction.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

love4himies said:


> Even Velonews is perpetuating the myth:


Glad you now agree it is a myth


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

CoffeeBean2 said:


> Charities lobby lawmakers all the time. You're splitting hairs by expressly calling out the defunding USADA. Also, nice cherry-picking by comparing Livestrong to the National Cancer Coalition. Why didn't you use the American Cancer Society or all cancer-related charities to see how Livestrong stacks up? But, hey, I'll play. For FYE 08/2012, the American Cancer Society raised $924,453,841. They had $985,776,801 in expenses. That's a negative balance sheet. But, damn, Livestrong was the absolute worst.


Silence Pharmstrong supporter!!!!1111

I think my hospital tends to spend a cool million every time we change our name and have done that 5 times since I started. Yet, they can't afford to pay me more than a new grad.....


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

CoffeeBean2 said:


> Charities lobby lawmakers all the time. You're splitting hairs by expressly calling out the defunding USADA. Also, nice cherry-picking by comparing Livestrong to the National Cancer Coalition. Why didn't you use the American Cancer Society or all cancer-related charities to see how Livestrong stacks up? But, hey, I'll play. For FYE 08/2012, the American Cancer Society raised $924,453,841. They had $985,776,801 in expenses. That's a negative balance sheet. But, damn, Livestrong was the absolute worst.


Let me guess, you are not an accountant? :thumbsup:

Lets see what a couple of accounting Professors think

FraudBytes: Lance Armstrong Investigation: LiveStrong Brought to Light

FraudBytes: Livestrong, Lance Armstrong and the IRS

FraudBytes: Lance Armstrong Investigation: Was LiveStrong Built on the Back of a Fraud?

FraudBytes: Lance Armstrong Investigation: LiveStrong Gets Involved

Yeah, yeah, we know. Cherry picking, witch hunt, hair splinting


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Yeah, yeah, we know. Cherry picking, witch hunt, hair splinting


via Blog sites.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

spade2you said:


> via Blog sites.


Run by a couple of experts



> Aaron Zimbelman is an Assistant Professor in the School of Accounting of the Moore School of Business at the University of South Carolina. His research and teaching interests include auditing and financial statement fraud. Aaron received his PhD in Accountancy from the University of Illinois and his MAcc and BS degrees from Brigham Young University.





> Mark Zimbelman is an accounting professor at Brigham Young University (Provo, Utah). He teaches classes on auditing and fraud examination and focuses his research on preventing and detecting financial statement fraud. Dr. Zimbelman received his doctorate from the University of Arizona and his research on fraud has been published in numerous academic journals.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Run by a couple of experts


Blogsites are always run by experts and 100% truthful (when they share your agenda). 

Hell, I have a PhD.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Glad you now agree it is a myth


I'm open minded. If you show me that I'm wrong, I will change my beliefs, but if you can't, I won't.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

spade2you said:


> Blogsites are always run by experts and 100% truthful (when they share your agenda).
> 
> Hell, I have a PhD.


But you're not a pharmacist because you haven't provided your license number, right?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

love4himies said:


> But you're not a pharmacist because you haven't provided your license number, right?


This is true. I have also been told I'm extremely stupid, but somehow it was within the rules because I'm an Armstrong defender.


----------



## Jackhammer (Sep 23, 2014)

love4himies said:


> I'm open minded. If you show me that I'm wrong, I will change my beliefs, but if you can't, I won't.


Which is the reason it takes the truth time to catch up with a lie.

Dr. Falsetti has a pretty good track record, no?


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

spade2you said:


> This is true. I have also been told I'm extremely stupid, but somehow it was within the rules because I'm an Armstrong defender.


Hmmmmm, sounds like the bullying tactics that would be used by one Lance Armstrong in order to get compliance to their way of thinking.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

*Moderators Note*

Kids play nice or I am pulling the car over.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

spade2you said:


> Blogsites are always run by experts and 100% truthful (when they share your agenda).
> 
> Hell, I have a PhD.


Blah, blah......when you can't address the topic it is always easier to attack the messenger then address the message.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

coolhand said:


> kids play nice or i am pulling the car over.


you're not my real dad!!!!


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

Coolhand said:


> Kids play nice or I am pulling the car over.


Oh that brings back memories. My father was military so we moved across Canada quite a few times when I was a child (back in 60's and 70's) and my mother was able to turn around and smack all three kids with one swipe when we were arguing in the car. Boy, she had it down to a science, lol.


----------



## Jackhammer (Sep 23, 2014)

love4himies said:


> I never said he "saved" I stated by what I read he "helped save" them and if you had proof otherwise to post it. You then told me to post my proof. I did post what I read and what I based my opinion on. If you had different proof, you should just post it rather than calling people Lance apologists.


I voted for Obama twice so I helped kill bin Laden.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

Jackhammer said:


> I voted for Obama twice so I helped kill bin Laden.


You are a good person. Every vote counts and had he not won, Osama may still be alive today. The world thanks you and the US.


----------



## robt57 (Jul 23, 2011)

How does one know if the Political or Doping forum is appropriate for Lance Posts??

Yes, sarcastic/ferocious/snarky/etc


----------



## robt57 (Jul 23, 2011)

spade2you said:


> you're not my real dad!!!!



Let's see the doping, err DNA test results...


----------



## CoffeeBean2 (Aug 6, 2005)

What does it matter? You've chosen to compare Livestrong's expenses/revenue to National Cancer Society's expenses/revenue to try to continue to cast a bad light on Armstrong. That's cherry-picking. That's like comparing U.S. healthcare spending vs. outcomes against Columbia's healthcare spending vs. outcomes to put the U.S. in a better light. However, if the U.S. healthcare spending vs. outcomes is compared to other first-world countries, the outcome is decidedly different.

Whether Livestrong was built on fraud or continued to defraud donors is a different issue. I suspect there are donors and recipients on both sides of that issue.


----------



## robt57 (Jul 23, 2011)

CoffeeBean2 said:


> Whether Livestrong was built on fraud or continued to defraud donors is a different issue. I suspect there are donors and recipients on both sides of that issue.



Observationally, said donors which made 6 figure donations are well within the means to push the issue without unfounded useless accusations. Unless that use is intended to further an agenda of doubt.

I will be the first to say if fraud was perpetrated it should be prosecuted.

If I had donated 6 figures and thought there was fraud, I would spend more pursuing it legally.


----------



## CoffeeBean2 (Aug 6, 2005)

robt57 said:


> Observationally, said donors which made 6 figure donations are well within the means to push the issue without unfounded useless accusations. Unless that use is intended to further an agenda of doubt.
> 
> I will be the first to say if fraud was perpetrated it should be prosecuted.
> 
> If I had donated 6 figures and thought there was fraud, I would spend more pursuing it legally.


I would agree. I think it depends on each person's perspective. When my wife and I got married, we gave away the Livestrong bracelets as wedding favors. Do I feel like we were defrauded? No. Am I demanding my money back? No. Did Armstrong give cancer victims hope? I would say yes. Are there any cancer victims who feel let down by Armstrong's cheating? I don't know - I suspect there are. I would also suspect there are cancer victims who were and are motivated by Armstrong defeating cancer.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

CoffeeBean2 said:


> That's cherry-picking.


I suggest you read the links I posted. If you did you would see that is is far from cherry picking but a long term pattern of very questionable behavior by Livestrong and Lance.


----------



## CoffeeBean2 (Aug 6, 2005)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I suggest you read the links I posted. If you did you would see that is is far from cherry picking but a long term pattern of very questionable behavior by Livestrong and Lance.


I did read the links. Again, so what? You questioned how Livestrong's expenses for "$6,000,000 parties, lobbying to defund USADA, promoting the Armstrong myth, and lots of travel" and compared that to the expenses of the National Cancer Coalition. You cherry-picked a cancer charity with a stellar rating and a large revenue-to-expenses ratio prove your point. Again, why not compare Livestrong to the American Cancer Society? Or all cancer charities?

But, hey, I can play that game too:

American Cancer Society More Interested in Wealth than Health

100-Page Report Outlines Why the American Cancer Society is a Scam | Natural Society

Why the American Cancer Society is a Scam

Hey, look, the American Cancer Society has a pattern of questionable behavior - and they raise far more money than Livestrong.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

CoffeeBean2 said:


> I did read the links. Again, so what? You questioned how Livestrong's expenses for "$6,000,000 parties, lobbying to defund USADA, promoting the Armstrong myth, and lots of travel" and compared that to the expenses of the National Cancer Coalition. You cherry-picked a cancer charity with a stellar rating and a large revenue-to-expenses ratio prove your point. Again, why not compare Livestrong to the American Cancer Society? Or all cancer charities?
> 
> But, hey, I can play that game too:
> 
> ...


No facts! It doesn't matter that to some degree or another, everyone was doping. It doesn't matter that there were other jerks. Or that other charities squandered--or worse, pilfered--more funds. This doesn't have anything to do with evidence or fair comparisons. Hating Armstrong is not particularly rational.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

CoffeeBean2 said:


> I did read the links. Again, so what? You questioned how Livestrong's expenses for "$6,000,000 parties, lobbying to defund USADA, promoting the Armstrong myth, and lots of travel" and compared that to the expenses of the National Cancer Coalition. You cherry-picked a cancer charity with a stellar rating and a large revenue-to-expenses ratio prove your point. Again, why not compare Livestrong to the American Cancer Society? Or all cancer charities?
> 
> But, hey, I can play that game too:
> 
> ...


Ahh, the old "Everyone was doing it" excuse. Didn't work with mom, didn't work with USADA, doesn't work here. 

Pointing out the $6,000,000 parties, huge travel expenses, Armstrong getting paid to attend events, Selling the name to a .com spam artist, wasting huge amounts of funds on advertising and events devoted to the Armstrong brand. The list is endless. Detailing this pattern of deception is not "Cherry Picking". 

It appears some are having trouble with the death of the myth.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Ahh, the old "Everyone was doing it" excuse. Didn't work with mom, didn't work with USADA, doesn't work here.


We get it. Bassons and LeMond were the only clean riders in the last 30 years.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Coolhand said:


> Kids play nice or I am pulling the car over.


apparently not.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

when you have a bunch of donors writing 6 figure checks at your events, the events tend to wind up being pretty swanky

you don't have your high dollar fundraiser at a picnic / bbq / hayride

people that write big checks like to dress up and have their picture taken at the posh event they attended to do so


just saying


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

atpjunkie said:


> when you have a bunch of donors writing 6 figure checks at your events, the events tend to wind up being pretty swanky
> 
> you don't have your high dollar fundraiser at a picnic / bbq / hayride
> 
> ...


Wait, what? They don't want to go to Subway catered events?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

atpjunkie said:


> when you have a bunch of donors writing 6 figure checks at your events, the events tend to wind up being pretty swanky
> 
> you don't have your high dollar fundraiser at a picnic / bbq / hayride
> 
> ...


When you classify your $6,000,000 party as a "Program cost" your foundation looks less like an organization dedicated to cancer and more like a Ponzi scheme


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

atpjunkie said:


> when you have a bunch of donors writing 6 figure checks at your events, the events tend to wind up being pretty swanky
> 
> you don't have your high dollar fundraiser at a picnic / bbq / hayride
> 
> ...


"he 2009 travel expenses for Livestrong total almost $2 million ($1,922,995). 
"For comparison, the National Cancer Coalition, with 5 times as much money raised, only claimed $108,559 in travel expenses"
almost 20 times the travel expenses for 1/5 the profit. 
I got a great pension plan to sell ya.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

You can't compare two charities unless they have the same mandates even if they are supporting the same illness. 

It appears that the National Cancer Coalition distributes medical supplies all over the world with some publications for educational purposes. Most of their donations appear to consist of medicines and medical equipment. What is troubling to me is that they do have such a low travel budget. Are they not doing their due diligence to ensure what they are distributing is being used as intended? Distributing $136 million worth of supplies world wide and only having a traveling expense of $68K??? That's not too much traveling when you think of airfare, hotels, meals and incidentals.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

love4himies said:


> Are they not doing their due diligence to ensure what they are distributing is being used as intended?


anything specific to back it up? 
Any reports of lack of due diligence?


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

love4himies said:


> You can't compare two charities unless they have the same mandates even if they are supporting the same illness.
> 
> It appears that the National Cancer Coalition distributes medical supplies all over the world with some publications for educational purposes. Most of their donations appear to consist of medicines and medical equipment. What is troubling to me is that they do have such a low travel budget. Are they not doing their due diligence to ensure what they are distributing is being used as intended? Distributing $136 million worth of supplies world wide and only having a traveling expense of $68K??? That's not too much traveling when you think of airfare, hotels, meals and incidentals.


LOL, are you seriously attacking a charity that keeps it's fees low and actually helps people by handing out medical supplies?


----------



## kokothemonkey (Jul 7, 2004)

deleted


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

deviousalex said:


> LOL, are you seriously attacking a charity that keeps it's fees low and actually helps people by handing out medical supplies?


It is called deflection. Classic Armstrong move. 

If Livestrong wanted to raise awareness the internet is the easiest, and cheapest, way to do so. What do they do? They sell the livestrong.com domain to the king of spam. The .org flounders while the .com explodes....then flames out, stock craters, and all they have done is fill the internet with garbage link bait and advertising for HGH and testosterone.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It is called deflection. Classic Armstrong move.
> 
> If Livestrong wanted to raise awareness the internet is the easiest, and cheapest, way to do so. What do they do? They sell the livestrong.com domain to the king of spam. The .org flounders while the .com explodes....then flames out, stock craters, and all they have done is fill the internet with garbage link bait and advertising for HGH and testosterone.


I'm tired of websites selling ads!


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

den bakker said:


> "he 2009 travel expenses for Livestrong total almost $2 million ($1,922,995).
> "For comparison, the National Cancer Coalition, with 5 times as much money raised, only claimed $108,559 in travel expenses"
> almost 20 times the travel expenses for 1/5 the profit.
> I got a great pension plan to sell ya.


I've never started or run a charity. I imagine some are better than others. But this demonization of all things Armstrong--including Livestrong--is over the top. Livestrong is not stealing or embezzling money, as countless charities and other businesses have done. They are not polluting streams or killing wildlife. And they are not falsifying medical research so dangerous drugs can be pushed to market. Who cares about the parties? There is no reason to think they are cooking the books. Since the donors know (or could know) where the money goes, all this Livestrong outrage seems phony and contrived.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Local Hero said:


> I've never started or run a charity. I imagine some are better than others. But this demonization of all things Armstrong--including Livestrong--is over the top. Livestrong is not stealing or embezzling money, as countless charities and other businesses have done. They are not polluting streams or killing wildlife. And they are not falsifying medical research so dangerous drugs can be pushed to market. Who cares about the parties? There is no reason to think they are cooking the books. Since the donors know (or could know) where the money goes, all this Livestrong outrage seems phony and contrived.


demonization but quoting almost a factor of 20 difference in travel expenses? weird.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> I've never started or run a charity. I imagine some are better than others. But this demonization of all things Armstrong--including Livestrong--is over the top. Livestrong is not stealing or embezzling money, as countless charities and other businesses have done. They are not polluting streams or killing wildlife. And they are not falsifying medical research so dangerous drugs can be pushed to market. Who cares about the parties? There is no reason to think they are cooking the books. Since the donors know (or could know) where the money goes, all this Livestrong outrage seems phony and contrived.


Yeah, yeah. We get it. Pointing out that Livestrong has wasted millions of dollars that donors thought was going to cancer but instead went to promoting a myth is "Demonizing"......and USADA's reasoned decision was just a "Witch Hunt", LeMond was "Jealous", Landis was "Bitter". Blah, Blah. 

Never question the myth......it activates the talking points.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

den bakker said:


> anything specific to back it up?
> Any reports of lack of due diligence?


To back up what? A question????? Is there a requirement to back up a question?


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

deviousalex said:


> LOL, are you seriously attacking a charity that keeps it's fees low and actually helps people by handing out medical supplies?


Not attacking, just asking the question, does this make sense? A financial audit makes comments on the financial aspects of a business, not whether a company has good sound policies on other aspects of the business. Just because expenses are low does not mean a company is not ripe with fraud and vice versa.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

love4himies said:


> To back up what? A question????? Is there a requirement to back up a question?


yeah just asking questions. of course. 
no requirement from you and of course there's no requirement from anyone else to see through the thin "question" veil and chuckle.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

den bakker said:


> yeah just asking questions. of course.
> no requirement from you and of course there's no requirement from anyone else to see through the thin "question" veil and chuckle.


When something seems too good to be true, then it should be met with some healthy skepticism. You know, like winning 7 TdF and all with the claim of not doping while others were.

And just because somebody says it's legit, doesn't mean it is. You know, like defenders of Lance not doping. And just because a person asks some questions about something that doesn't seem legit doesn't mean that that person should be bashed, you know, like Lance did to his disbelievers.


America's Worst Charities: National Cancer Coalition




> National Cancer Coalition gets its donated medical supplies from major pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer and Teva. In 2011, the charity claimed it donated Gardasil, an HPV vaccine for young women, to Ghana. However, a spokeswoman for Axios, which is managing the vaccination program in Ghana, said only two U.S. charities played a role in the donation. National Cancer Coalition was not one of them.





> In calls to donors, NCC's hired telemarketers say the charity uses donations to provide free mammograms and prostate exams. No such programs are reported in the charity's IRS tax filing.
> 
> In its latest IRS filing, NCC said its "Childhood Cancer Research Coalition" seeks to provide grants to researchers. But the charity did not report any such grants in its tax filing that year.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

love4himies said:


> When something seems too good to be true, then it should be met with some healthy skepticism. You know, like winning 7 TdF and all with the claim of not doping while others were.
> 
> And just because somebody says it's legit, doesn't mean it is. You know, like defenders of Lance not doping. And just because a person asks some questions about something that doesn't seem legit doesn't mean that that person should be bashed, you know, like Lance did to his disbelievers.
> 
> ...


see the difference in "just asking questions" and providing something actually suggesting some basis for it?


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

den bakker said:


> see the difference in "just asking questions" and providing something actually suggesting some basis for it?


When a charity is dispersing $135 million worth of goods *world wide* and only has $68K in travel, that is worthy of questioning as it is NOT NORMAL. Doesn't mean it's not legit, just that it should be verified.


Have you ever worked with auditors?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

love4himies said:


> When something seems too good to be true, then it should be met with some healthy skepticism.


funny how when it comes to Lance this skepticism is labeled "demonizing" "Witch hunt" .


----------



## CoffeeBean2 (Aug 6, 2005)

love4himies said:


> When something seems too good to be true, then it should be met with some healthy skepticism. You know, like winning 7 TdF and all with the claim of not doping while others were.
> 
> And just because somebody says it's legit, doesn't mean it is. You know, like defenders of Lance not doping. And just because a person asks some questions about something that doesn't seem legit doesn't mean that that person should be bashed, you know, like Lance did to his disbelievers.
> 
> ...


Wait, how could this be? The National Cancer Coalition is a saint, and Livestrong is a devil!!


----------



## CoffeeBean2 (Aug 6, 2005)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Ahh, the old "Everyone was doing it" excuse. Didn't work with mom, didn't work with USADA, doesn't work here.
> 
> Pointing out the $6,000,000 parties, huge travel expenses, Armstrong getting paid to attend events, Selling the name to a .com spam artist, wasting huge amounts of funds on advertising and events devoted to the Armstrong brand. The list is endless. Detailing this pattern of deception is not "Cherry Picking".
> 
> It appears some are having trouble with the death of the myth.


Bzzzz...wrong. Answer the question - why didn't you compare Livestrong to the American Cancer Society? Or to the cancer charities community as a whole? And the myth is dead and buried. But nice try...


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> funny how when it comes to Lance this skepticism is labeled "demonizing" "Witch hunt" .


It wouldn't be if every rider got the same punishment and was under the same scrutiny. Shall I point out Ryder Hesjedal didn't get any sanctions for his doping. I don't care how much I like the guy, he should have been sanctioned.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

CoffeeBean2 said:


> Bzzzz...wrong. Answer the question - why didn't you compare Livestrong to the American Cancer Society? Or to the cancer charities community as a whole? And the myth is dead and buried. But nice try...


Buzz, wrong answer. Why do you pretend that cancer charities as a whole are scams like Livestrong? 

If it helps you come to terms with the death of the myth then by all means pretend that "everyone was doing it" so that makes it all good. ......but don't expect everyone else to do the same

Nice try


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

love4himies said:


> Shall I point out Ryder Hesjedal didn't get any sanctions for his doping. I don't care how much I like the guy, he should have been sanctioned.


UCI tried basing punishments on the whims of a few leaders. It didn't turn out too well. Under what rules would you have issued those sanctions?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

asgelle said:


> UCI tried basing punishments on the whims of a few leaders. It didn't turn out too well. Under what rules would you have issued those sanctions?


Double secret probation? 

Gotta laugh when people pretend that riders who testified are the same as a guy who filed multiple Federal lawsuits, harassed and threaten USADA, smeared them for several years, and lobby to get them defunded.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Yeah, yeah. We get it. Pointing out that Livestrong has wasted millions of dollars that donors thought was going to cancer but instead went to promoting a myth is "Demonizing"


Who thought money was "going to cancer"? What does that even mean? Any donor was free to look at Livestrong's financials. 

As far as charities go, Livestrong's numbers are not outlandish. They did not embezzle money. It was not a ponzi scheme.

I have not donated money to Livestrong and don't really feel the need to defend the org but let's be honest here. All the dislike for Livestrong comes from a dislike for Armstrong. Those who rail against Livestrong's spending aren't really interested in the spending of any other charity, as it doesn't advance their campaign against Armstrong. 

Many, many charities and companies are far worse than Livestrong. But the (phony) outrage is limited to Livestrong. 

lol



> ......and USADA's reasoned decision was just a "Witch Hunt", LeMond was "Jealous", Landis was "Bitter". Blah, Blah.
> 
> Never question the myth......it activates the talking points.


What are you even talking about? I didn't use those talking points.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Gotta laugh when people pretend that riders who testified are the same as a guy who filed multiple Federal lawsuits, harassed and threaten USADA, smeared them for several years, and lobby to get them defunded.


 That just proves he's an a$$hole, but as far as punishment for doping, it should be the same for all riders, a$$hole or nice guy. And it's people who separate the a$$hole from the doping who are the ones that are saying Armstrong was treated unfairly.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> Who thought money was "going to cancer"? What does that even mean? Any donor was free to look at Livestrong's financials.
> 
> As far as charities go, Livestrong's numbers are not outlandish. They did not embezzle money. It was not a ponzi scheme.
> 
> ...


This is a cycling forum. This thread is about Lance. If you want to discuss other charities scams then maybe you should start a tread about them? 

Instead of attacking the poster how about addressing the content of the post? I have given plenty of facts that show that Livestrong wasted millions of dollars that could be going to a wide range of services related to people with cancer. I have given links from accounting experts that feel the same. Ignoring this and saying that people that raising these issues are doing it just because they hate Lance is absurd. 

$6,000,000 parties do little to help people with cancer. Counting the cost of shipping a t-shirt and a wrist band as a 'Program cost" is deliberately misleading. No wonder some donors want there money back
Some Livestrong Donors Want Money Back After Lance Armstrong Doping Scandal

Lots more are too embarrassed to say anything


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

love4himies said:


> ... but as far as punishment for doping, it should be the same for all riders, ...


Perhaps, but this is the world we live in and it's not. There are provisions in the rules to reduce sanctions based on the degree of cooperation. Plenty try to deflect this by claiming differences are based on likability or whatnot, but the evidence just doesn't support that, and WADA is always there looking over the shoulder of NADAs to make sure it doesn't happen.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

love4himies said:


> That just proves he's an a$$hole, but as far as punishment for doping, it should be the same for all riders, a$$hole or nice guy. And it's people who separate the a$$hole from the doping who are the ones that are saying Armstrong was treated unfairly.


No. It is more then him being an A$$hole, it is the WADA code. 

The code is clear, if you come in and provide substantial assistance you can get your sanction reduced. There is also a Statue of Limitation. Lance did not cooperate, he fought, smeared, and lobbied. The result is he was sanctioned to the fullest extent......while crying that he was a victim.:cryin:


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> This is a cycling forum. This thread is about Lance. If you want to discuss other charities scams then maybe you should start a tread about them?


On the bigger issue, is all the outrage regarding Livestrong justified? Or is it phony outrage which only exists as a way to further attack Armstrong? 

Plenty of charities waste money. Do we care about Livestrong only because of Armstrong? 

This is a valid question. 

And we all know the answer. The outrage is PHONY. 


> Instead of attacking the poster how about addressing the content of the post?


I'm not sure where I attacked you but your admonishment is fascinating, especially after saying all that stuff about: 

"and USADA's reasoned decision was just a "Witch Hunt", LeMond was "Jealous", Landis was "Bitter". Blah, Blah."

Review this thread and you will see that I dd not mention any of those things (though they may all be true). If we're going to stick to the content of posts, can you please stop introducing new content and pretending that I said it? 

THANKS!


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> On the bigger issue, is all the outrage regarding Livestrong justified? Or is it phony outrage which only exists as a way to further attack Armstrong?


I gave you plenty of links that show that questioning Livestrong is justified. You would prefer to ignore these links, cry that these facts "Demonize" lance, pretend the "Outrage" is unjustified, and deflect the discussion to other charities.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I gave you plenty of links that show that questioning Livestrong is justified. You would prefer to ignore these links, cry that these facts "Demonize" lance, pretend the "Outrage" is unjustified, and deflect the discussion to other charities.


Oh I see. We cannot talk about how Livestrong is rather run of the mill with its numbers, especially when compared to other charities. We cannot talk about charities that do embezzle money or commit crimes. 

We can only talk about Livestrong. 

Got it. 

$6mil party. Check. 


Response: Meh. 

The donors had every opportunity to review the financials. 



_NEXT!_


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> Oh I see. We cannot talk about how Livestrong is rather run of the mill with its numbers, especially when compared to other charities. We cannot talk about charities that do embezzle money or commit crimes.
> 
> We can only talk about Livestrong.
> 
> ...


Meh. 

Yeah, yeah, we get it. It is not Livestrong fault, it is the stupid donors. Stupid sucker groupies should have know they were getting scammed.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

*Scammed? If you say so.*

The donors freely donated and the charter of the nonprofit was available for them to review. Surely there are many who know where the money went and do not feel they scammed. Many, many people were helped by Livestrong. 

Just keep saying it and maybe one day it will become true. Scammed! Scammers spammers scam scam.

LOL


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> Oh I see. We cannot talk about how Livestrong is rather run of the mill with its numbers, especially when compared to other charities. We cannot talk about charities that do embezzle money or commit crimes.
> 
> We can only talk about Livestrong.
> 
> ...


This doesn't help you. Insults and emotional outbursts detract from your argument.


----------



## CoffeeBean2 (Aug 6, 2005)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Buzz, wrong answer. Why do you pretend that cancer charities as a whole are scams like Livestrong?
> 
> If it helps you come to terms with the death of the myth then by all means pretend that "everyone was doing it" so that makes it all good. ......but don't expect everyone else to do the same
> 
> Nice try


Oh, I see - Livestrong was/is a scam, and all other cancer charities are above reproach. I've already provided proof that the American Cancer society has been labeled a scam (just like your labeling Livestrong a scam), so the question remains - why don't you compare Livestrong to the ACS? Don't worry, you don't have to answer - we already know why.

Face it - anything to do with Armstrong is a scam, fraud, etc in your eyes. I bet you think Mellow Johnny's is a scam/fraud as well, don't you.


----------



## CoffeeBean2 (Aug 6, 2005)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> This doesn't help you. Insults and emotional outbursts detract from your argument.


You're kidding, right? Where's the insult in Local Hero's post?? And where's the emotional outburst?? The truth of the matter is you don't like it when someone questions your assertions.


----------



## CoffeeBean2 (Aug 6, 2005)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Meh.
> 
> Yeah, yeah, we get it. It is not Livestrong fault, it is the stupid donors. Stupid sucker groupies should have know they were getting scammed.


And I bet you think investors shouldn't have to read a prospectus before investing, right?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

CoffeeBean2 said:


> Oh, I see - Livestrong was/is a scam, and all other cancer charities are above reproach. I've already provided proof that the American Cancer society has been labeled a scam (just like your labeling Livestrong a scam), so the question remains - why don't you compare Livestrong to the ACS? Don't worry, you don't have to answer - we already know why.
> 
> Face it - anything to do with Armstrong is a scam, fraud, etc in your eyes. I bet you think Mellow Johnny's is a scam/fraud as well, don't you.


As I said before, There are plenty of scam charities that mislead donors and waste money. Just because other charities waste money and mislead donors does not mean Livestrong actions are excusable. The "everyone was doing it" excuse does not work

This is a Armstronf thread in cycling forum. Do you really expect all charities to be dissected here or is that just more deflection?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

CoffeeBean2 said:


> Face it - anything to do with Armstrong is a scam, fraud, etc in your eyes. I bet you think Mellow Johnny's is a scam/fraud as well, don't you.


I have given you multiple links from multiple experts that question Livestrongs actions. You ignore these and go after me personally. 

The fact is many question Livestrong. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/01/1...g-are-bound-together.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

And many think donors were mislead

LANCE ARMSTRONG FOUNDATION FRAUD [UPDATED] - CNN iReport

Not everyone who questions the myth is an obsessed hater. Even the American instate of Philatropy questioned Livestrong wasteful ways

FraudBytes: What does LiveStrong and Three Cups of Tea have in Common?
Are they just haters?


----------

