He's back! Armstrong crushes field in first time trial.



RdBiker

New Member
Oct 20, 2005
403
0
0
32
No_Positives said:
Anything to get rid of those awful Astana kits would be good. The only kit worse is Cofidis.

Don't bash the kits. They were designed my Vino's mother.
 

RdBiker

New Member
Oct 20, 2005
403
0
0
32
No_Positives said:
Anything to get rid of those awful Astana kits would be good. The only kit worse is Cofidis.

EDIT: Double post...

Let's write something new here:
This win was probably good for Armstrong's self esteem. A win is always a win. It will be interesting to see what his fitness is in a Pro-level race, or in a Pro-level TT. Then we'll see if his pair (it was a TTT right?) was holding him back or not.
 

9.8mps2

New Member
Feb 9, 2006
106
0
0
63
You guys are a tough crowd . It was two days of primo weather and a nice course along the Guadalupe River . I figure if HWNMNBM raises a little cycling awareness and helps one Billy Bubba look out for riders rather than see them as a target we all win . I thought he was riding for UPS though - the kit has a dark brown cast to it .
 

earth_dweller

New Member
Jul 30, 2006
1,814
0
0
Andrija said:
Not just EPO...
And not just at altitude.
yeah I wonder what wonder drug he's found. He has to be sure that he won't be nailed by a test, so is it a new generation EPO, HGH, or....?
 

Andrija

Member
Feb 16, 2005
1,654
10
0
earth_dweller said:
yeah I wonder what wonder drug he's found. He has to be sure that he won't be nailed by a test, so is it a new generation EPO, HGH, or....?
I'm convinced it's something about gene doping... And I'm convinced he's not newbie in it.
 

No_Positives

New Member
Aug 15, 2007
264
2
0
Andrija said:
I'm convinced it's something about gene doping... And I'm convinced he's not newbie in it.
I'm convinced it's something about him being better than everyone else. And I'm convinced it will continue.
 

Andrija

Member
Feb 16, 2005
1,654
10
0
No_Positives said:
I'm convinced it's something about him being better than everyone else. And I'm convinced it will continue.
He sure is, my Negative(s) friend (that's equal to No_Positives, isn't it?).
He must be better than others if he's (was) the best. The problem is - he was better than proven doped field and now he wants to be better than competition which we all doubt is clean. That makes him (pretty much) better than everyone else in doping.
 

cynic

New Member
Aug 5, 2006
102
0
0
No_Positives said:
I'm convinced it's something about him being better than everyone else. And I'm convinced it will continue.
It's so nice to see that you're still in love with your man, so many of these things don't last.
 

poulidor

New Member
Jul 31, 2006
1,464
0
0
No_Positives said:
I'm convinced it's something about him being better than everyone else. And I'm convinced it will continue.
Sure he is the best liar but only in cycling field. He has been beaten by G. W Bush who make the biggest lie of the recent history with WMD!

Wonderfull Texans!
 

Ashley.S.Olsen

New Member
Mar 10, 2008
53
0
0
poulidor said:
Sure he is the best liar but only in cycling field. He has been beaten by G. W Bush who make the biggest lie of the recent history with WMD!

Wonderfull Texans!
the true of the LAF: (sauce uinkmown)

Firstly, despite the claims of some, the LAF does not make any significant contribution to the field of cancer research. Of the 270 million US dollars the LAF has raised, just 19.1 million has gone to cancer research. This is a mere drop in the ocean of the billion dollar world of cancer research.

Secondly the LAF does not directly save lives by paying for cancer treatment. In fact, the LAF says that it`s primary aim is to: `help you understand what to expect, teach you what questions to ask and give you one-on-one support along the way. We help you learn about your treatment options`.

Many would argue that Armstrong could help cancer sufferers far more by persuading his corporate and Republican buddies to support the provision of universal health care in the USA.

Thirdly, the LAF is not on the list of charities approved by charity watchdog organisations, largely because it spends so much of what it receives on promoting the LAF. Of the 270 million dollars it has raised, a whopping 45% has gone on promoting the LAF. (And so, of course, Lance Armstrong). See
http://www.charitywatch.org/articles/cancer.html

Figures such as those above must cause one to wonder whether the true purpose of the LAF is to provide Armstrong with a PR shield which acts to deflect criticism as to how he achieved his Tour `wins`. Stephanie McIlvain (his former personal liaison with Oakley) certainly seems to believe this, as she made clear in that talk she had with Greg Lemond. (The one where she also admits that she heard Armstrong admit to doping). See:
http://j.b5z.net/i/u/2132106/m/gregstef.mp3

Fourthly, foundations are not always created for genuinely philanthropic reasons. The sports philanthropy project says the following of foundations created in the names of sports stars:
`Foundations... serve two immediate purposes: They can provide a hefty and long-term tax deduction on windfall signing bonuses and salaries. And they can supply positive public relations, if they flourish.

...On its own Web site, the National Heritage Foundation lists several reasons why agents should encourage their clients to start foundations. For one thing, agents may continue to be paid from the foundation after the athletes' retirement. Also listed: Community prestige, lower taxable income and the Pester Factor.
"Athletes are besieged with requests for funds by almost everyone they see," the site offers. "They would be able to say, 'All these matters are handled by my foundation.'"
On the 990 tax forms, charity for the wrong reason still counts as a write-off.`
http://www.sportsphilanthropyproject.com/resources/details.php?id=426

Of course, Armstrong is not alone in his `good work`. Others who operate similar PR scams, sorry, who are involved in similar work for good causes, include Floyd Landis and Tyler Hamilton...
http://www.floydlandisfoundation.org/

http://www.tylerhamilton.com/
 

Ashley.S.Olsen

New Member
Mar 10, 2008
53
0
0
The Lance Armstrong Foundation (LAF), founded by the champion bicyclist and cancer survivor of the same name, is celebrating its 10-year anniversary this year. Wouldn’t you think a charity that receives massive publicity for having one of the most popular causes and most admired celebrities as the face of the organization would be able to easily raise lots of money? Unfortunately this is not the case. LAF spent as much as $45 to raise each $100, exceeding AIP’s 35% recommended fundraising ceiling by a significant margin. While LAF had difficulty raising contributions efficiently, it did prove to be a savvy merchandise marketer. LAF sold over $24 million in merchandise, including the ubiquitous yellow “LIVESTRONG” wristband, as well as clothing, sports gear and even dog leashes. Yet after spending $10 million in solicitation costs, the group brought in only $22 million in contributions, according to AIP’s analysis of LAF’s 2005 financial statements.
 

Similar threads