now trek dropped him...
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/trek-breaks-ties-with-lance-armstrong
now trek dropped him...
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/trek-breaks-ties-with-lance-armstrong
Variability wrote:
now trek dropped him...
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/trek-breaks-ties-with-lance-armstrong
And, like Nike & Anheuser Busch, they will "retain association with Livestrong". They sell 3 Livestrong bikes.
I'd love to know how much (and what %) of Nike, Anheuser Busch, & Trek's future money to Livestrong will end up in Lance's pocket.
Anybody here have a good understanding of how Livestrong money flows?
Armstrong is like all big crime kingpins, and he is all of that with his professional machine suing, bribing, threatening and destroying anyone who dares utter the truth.
Every mafioso worth his salt takes care of his neighborhood or wider territory with college tuitions, picking up medical bills and throwing some charity money around to make him more resilient in case things get hot.
Remember the fools who picketed for John Gotti because of the freebies they had received over the years?
Years ago, my wife and I wondered whether Livestrong, which contains a profit taking side, was created mostly to buttress LA's reputation in case the poo ever hit the fan rather than for the stated charitable goals.
A fabulously, rich guy who makes appearances for charity but still gets paid; sounds like lady Di with five o'clock shadow. What an F-in saint.
Hey, HEY!!!
CAN YOU HEAR ME NIKE!
The only thing Nike can do is take the swoosh
and swoosh me tush!
Me was goin' to re-wrote "Woman is the nig*** of the world"
with....nah zats too easy.
That was a great movie.
A Bronx tale wrote:
Armstrong is like all big crime kingpins, and he is all of that with his professional machine suing, bribing, threatening and destroying anyone who dares utter the truth.
Every mafioso worth his salt takes care of his neighborhood or wider territory with college tuitions, picking up medical bills and throwing some charity money around to make him more resilient in case things get hot.
Remember the fools who picketed for John Gotti because of the freebies they had received over the years?
Years ago, my wife and I wondered whether Livestrong, which contains a profit taking side, was created mostly to buttress LA's reputation in case the poo ever hit the fan rather than for the stated charitable goals.
A fabulously, rich guy who makes appearances for charity but still gets paid; sounds like lady Di with five o'clock shadow. What an F-in saint.
That's a great comparison. When I watched a recent video on the LA saga, Tyler Hamilton, and others mentioned that once they doped, LA mentioned something to the effect of "now you can't go write a book, 'cause you've doped too." Made me think of how the mob operates - make somebody commit a crime/murder before you let them in as a way of self-protecting.
What a Scumbag.
My word means nothing wrote:
Yet Paula has a strong opinion on Lance.
Never heard Paula say a word about Mary Slaney, have you?
agip, trust me. LA ain't gonna be ahead in the game when all is said and done.
The Army of lawyers who will take Lance's fraudulently earned income is already swarming. And will continue to swarm. And swarm. For many years.
LA will not grow old feeling good about himself. And I'm very happy about that.
badger in the making wrote:
Ask Tim Hacker or Bob Kennedy about Nike contracts.
I also believe that Salazar is next. Having your name on a building has become meaningless. Joe Pa and Lance are proof positive of that.
Alberto is untouchable. Knight has built a firewall around him.
2013 wrote:
Variability wrote:now trek dropped him...
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/trek-breaks-ties-with-lance-armstrongAnd, like Nike & Anheuser Busch, they will "retain association with Livestrong". They sell 3 Livestrong bikes.
I'd love to know how much (and what %) of Nike, Anheuser Busch, & Trek's future money to Livestrong will end up in Lance's pocket.
Anybody here have a good understanding of how Livestrong money flows?
----------------------------------------
To all , the timing of all this was done by Lance and his team. Lance had been working with the companies on timing as he asked to end the deals ( note controlled timing not dragged out , limits the negative press time vs being done over a few months ) It was important for him to step down first at his foundation as to control the spin.
All of his deals have termination clauses and will be clean breaks , estimated royalty payments will be negotiated and paid asap. ( both sides made money off the deal )
He knows what he is doing and good faith goes a long way when the dust settles.
Coming next will be the admission of guilt and then rebuilding his image.
This will be a huge event , news groups are positioning for the exclusive now.
Stay tuned.
Does this mean Lance's blurb on the cover of Salazar's book 14 Minutes will be removed in future prints?
Follow @dimspace on Twitter, and have a look at this PDF:
Author: RuKiddingMe!!
Subject: RE: Nike Terminates Lance Armstrong Contract
Message:
Nike comment "Lance Armstrong "participated" in doping and misled" - Play on words again, notice they don't come out and say he USED DRUGS!
BTY: Jones admitted to use of drugs, Lance has not.
Without a "true conviction of a positive drug test" no ones really knows was they "think" they saw, could of been "Aregano". Like in the movie "I few good men".
*****************************************
Just go away...
2013 wrote:
My "cynical" take: Nike dropped Lance, but said they're staying with Livestrong. (does that mean they continue to sell the merchandise too? I bet so). Lance resigned as Chairman of Livestrong, but will remain on the board. That means he's still connected to Livestrong.
So, your cynical side is upset that Nike is going to continue being associated with a foundation dedicated to providing support to people dealing with cancer?
Just because Livestrong was started/founded by Lance doesn't mean it needs to go down the drain with him.
CHEATER. SHOULD GO TO JAIL.
Jeff Wigand wrote:
NIkeScam wrote:Why do you think Nike requires their top athletes to only work with specific coaches?
Because it saves them money.
Actually, no it doesn't. They will pay the athlete more to move to their specific coach, and pay less if they choose to stay with their college/current coach. So it actually costs them more money to require that. However, they have control over those specific coaches and pay them handsomely to be Nike only coaches. Why...you figure it out...
Livestrong probably needn't go down the drain with Armstrong, but if they refuse to sever their ties to Armstrong and his friends they probably should. There are plenty of good cancer-related charities out there that sport-related companies can support that don't come with the baggage Livestrong is so determined to hold on to.
If you're Nike et al, why support someone as toxic as Armstrong if you don't have to?
agip wrote:
Livestrong is a great thing. He built that. He inspired hundreds of thousands if not millions.
He's probably thinking along those lines.
Perhaps he is but he is delusional. Livestrong got started and flourished under the falsehood of Lance Armstrong the "Cancer Survivor" who won 7 TDF titles by beating the best. While he did in fact win, it was through the use of PEDs which wasn't disclosed to the public and when charged with the allegations by others was met with vicious character assassination by his own handlers and himself.
Livestrong, like the Susan G. Komen foundation, does a lot of good for cancer research and since the Reasoned Decision Report was handed down donations are up which I hope continues. Let's just hope people see Livestrong for what it does and not for who it is associated with.
Alberto will never have a problem with doping charges because track and field isn't big enough for anyone to care about him.
The only reason Lance suffered was because Europeans dislike Americans and Lance pissed them off by being so good. No one is out to get Alberto even if he was a cheat.
Have you guys read USADA's report? I have and it is WEAK!
In spite of the "overwhelming evidence" (how many times does USADA use those words?), even if what is in the report is true it only points out what a huge waste of resources was expended to feed the ego of Travis Tygart.
According to the report, virtually every one of the witnesses who admit to doping did it because they could not have been professional otherwise. Even Lance (according to Hincapie) initially decided to "do something" only after they got their butts kicked at Milan - San Remo.
The report goes into great detail about the efforts of the team doctors and the team director (Bruyneel) to keep the riders on a specific program of doping in order to maximize their performance. If all of that is true, why are we villifying the riders? Going after a single rider, even one as big as Lance, is a joke. Cycling is big business. It is a huge sport in Europe with major corporate sponsorships.
Cycling has had a problem with doping for its existence. Remember Tommy Simpson? That was in the 70s. Festina scandal was in '98. '99 (Lance's first year) was supposed to be the year of redemption.
Nike may be trying to distance themselves from Lance now, but to what extent were they complicit and did they profit from cycling's doping culture?
With respect to the "evidence" in the report, it is UNDERwhelming. No physical evidence. USADA whines about how Lance makes the claim that he is "the most tested athlete in the world" and has been drug-tested "over 500 times". USADA complains that Lance won't provide proof for that statement and then go on to say that they are only aware of over 260 drug tests (not including any tests which could have been administered by other agencies!).
This message is way too long already, but I could go on and on about that crappy report. There is a very good reason the feds dropped their case. I would have loved to watch the clowns at USADA actually try to prosecute their case.