UCI confirms Armstrong ban, strips him of seven Tour titles (Page 3)

Well we do live in a world where some believe talking on the phone will cause cancer. Or even sitting at a computer like we are. It would be awful to live in a bubble.

Note: not condoning doping, just find the SI article laughable.

I'm just saying some businesses/corps want their money back- LA was the face/heart and soul of all this.  Remember, Nike is "still supporting Livestrong"- I bet you anything Nike will dial that back and end all affiliation in a short time.

Apparently, at the big corporate donation level, they (many at least) can't/won't  make that distinction.

True, but if they want their $ back, they are alleging fraud on LA as the rep/agent for Livestrong. He's going to go down as the Bernie Madoff of charities- that's the analogy that history will show is accurate.

Very well said.

just a point, Livestrong doesn't fund cancer research

Actually Bernie Madoff was very successfull for many years and made money for tons of his clients in legit/legal fashion. Somewhere along the way, he started cheating/Ponzi scheme. House of cards all fell down and it did affect many people/hurt many people.  He was a golden boy and toast of the town in his "sport".  Some thought he couldn't be for real, and must be cheating, but there was never any evidence - no proof. Then one day, it all came unravelled. I'd say it's about the same. Both enterprises built on lies and false pretenses.

Livestrong does not donate money to research... they stop doing that very early on. their money goes to "awareness" and aiding patients to navigate through the sea of information.

The LS organization is fine, and the people doing the work are doing good work... All I want to know is that if we went back and knew the truth from the beginning... would anyone find 7 titles incredible knowing he doped the best. Would LS be where it is today if LA told the truth that he doped dangerous substances to get where he got? Would people donate hundreds of millions of dollars knowing LA lied and cheated to win 7 titles using PEDS better than everyone else.... I think not. Susan G Komen didn't.

Well, Americans do forgive, but look at how Barry Bonds, Mark McGuire, Sammy Socia (sp), are viewed, to this day, still as cheats. Bonds is baseball's homerun "king"- nobody treats him as such.  Nobody can say he didn't hit X number of HRs, we saw him do it, but HOW he did it matters. HOW LA won 7 TDFs matter to many.

The worst part of this whole ordeal is that Livestrong will most likely not make it through this.

x2. Your analogies aren't working for me at all. It's not a contract it's a donation. In what world can you sue for a donation that's being used for the reason it was given?:

"Sorry (cancer patient) you can't afford your treatment because we want our money back. We only donated because we thought Lance was honest." What company would want that PR?

It's apparent you want the Livestrong Foundation to fail, but to compare it to a ponzi scheme (let alone the largest in history) is crazy. All the money was going to the cause not to someone's pocket.

Lance is a cheat and deserves what he has coming. However there's a lot of people who knew everything and did nothing (governing bodies included). This LA stuff is far from over.

Also to someone's point. I don't think the Livestrong foundation would be anywhere near what it is without Lance's success. However we shouldn't be so quick to down something so good just because it was started by someone tarnished. Nike will keep Livestrong going as long as they're making a profit. Weather it can withstand or fall is really up to Nike now

Livestrong does not donate money to research or treatment. There has been some speculation as to what LS funds were used for... besides what is known, but so far, that is only speculation. LA and LS are inseparable... LS did just as much to build the image of LA as LA did to build the image of LS. Neither are anywhere close to the inspiration they are thought of knowing he doped better than anyone else and not only doped, but ran a sophisticated scheme to avoid detection and destroy anyone that spoke a word.

There is speculation the PEDS could have caused the cancer, and I do not give that much weight... but what is not speculation is that after cancer he had zero qualms of heavily using PEDs knowing that they are dangerous and he was "at risk". I'm sure if that was know at the time, not many people going through kemo would have found LA using his "second chance" as a PED experiment to be very "inspirational".

If you want to know what Livestrong does, here is a good article.

http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/athletes/lance-armstrong/Its-Not-About-the-Lab-Rats.html

That Lance raced clean and beat the odds for starters.  People bought into his story to donate.  Would Livestrong be around if LA never cheated I'm sure.  Would it have grown to the incredible cash making machine it is today.  I'd say that's doubtful

why people keep falsely  thinking Livestrong does research is beyond me. Most likely it's the same people that think he is innocent.

  How/Why does Livestrong's legal expense keep going up when LA is in trouble?   How does sponsoring a cycling team help cancer patients.  There have been quite a few stories of big donors (money wise) being told that they were getting receipts for less than the amount donated. exp. A 35k donation gets you a 25k receipt with the explanation that the other money is going to LA for his appearance fee.   When Livestrong reaches out to members of the government in a failed attempt to get the USADA case thrown out, that doesn't help cancer patients. Or when it's used to further the LA PR machine.

That is from our very own Kido on here...really good explanation on what Livestrong is about..

Regardless no company is going to want the PR sh!tstorm that would come from asking for money back from a charity.

Basically what it all boils down to in my eyes: If you want to give to LS then give. The charity hasn't changed. If you don't want to give because of LA then fine, but if you gave please find somewhere else to give.

Argument settled for me.

Have you ever heard of the "Pooh and Ice Cream" theory?

Here's how it works:

If you have a bowl of pooh, and a seperate bowl of ice cream, that's OK. The pooh is gross and smells, the ice cream is good to eat.

Mix the bowls together: The ice cream does not change the pooh, but the pooh changes the ice cream.

For many people the Armstrong Affair is "Pooh and Ice Cream Theory" personified: His drug bust ruins his cancer philanthropy.

For some people, they'll still eat the ice cream. Eww.

But for me the bowl with the pooh and the bowl with the ice creeam remain seperate. The drug use is the pooh bowl, the ice cream is cancer philanthropy bowl. They are not mixed.

I would throw the pooh bowl in a hole and keep the ice cream.

Problem solved.